Isn't this the first time you've written it? A few months of paper was finally completed and “presented” with expectations — a letter of rejection was received a few weeks later for the reason that you were ashamed:
“inadequate value of chosen topics”, “unlogical”, “format” ..
Don't panic
It's not you who can't study it, it's you who stepped on the “classic mined area” of the newer。
We combed the most common five types of high frequency (hf) problems in the editorial feedback and attached them as follows:A guide to hole avoidanceI'm sorry. Do it. YoursRecruitment rateIt really doubles
Minefield i: selected publications rely on “guess” rather than journal positioning。
Many newcomers opened the information network and found a journal with the name “education” “psychological” “management”, which was not included in the draft。
Correct operation:
I. Ten minutes to read the journal's nearly three editions of the catalogue and see if there are articles on similar subjects
Ii. A network of inspectors or public figures confirming the existence of a column on the direction of your research (e. G. “empirical research” “theory exploration” “young scholars forum”)
Vigilance of the “chicken journal” with a “high name but no cn/issn” - information on regular periodicals can be found in the network of officials of the national press and publications agency。
Small skills: opening the journal home page at the known point, looking at “complex impact factors” and “extracted frequency”, preliminary diagnosis of academic influence。
Minefield ii: the summary is written in the “introduction + conclusion” puzzle。
The editor looks at dozens of articles a day, and the summary is your gold 30 seconds. If you don't know what you've been working on, how you've done it, what you've found -- it's pretty cool。
It's a long summary:
I. One sentence to examine the issue
Ii. 1–2 sentences describing research methods (samples, tools, models, etc.)
Clear listing of core findings
4. The final point is of theoretical or practical value. (words control 200-300 words, no words!)。
Minefield iii: the reference is “as you wish”。
There's no distinction between chinese and english? Five years ago, but almost three years ago? These details give the editor the impression that “the author is not familiar with the field” and that “the author is not rigid”。
Pipe avoidance proposal:
Harmonized use of the gb/t 7714 format (mainstream within the country)
Ii. Prioritization of references to relevant papers published in targeted journals in recent years (showing that you know their academic background)
Iii. Automatically generated with tools such as noteexpress and endnote to avoid manual errors。
Minefield iv: fuzzy chart, misnumbered, not quoted in text。
A map of marseilles, a table marked by “figure 3” but not found in its entirety ... These “low-level errors” can bring down the sense of professionalism and even lead to withdrawal or withdrawal。
Checklist:
I. The chart is clear and readable (recommended to export 300 dpi or more)
Ii. Numbering consecutively (figures 1, 2 ... Tables 1, 2 ...)
There must be corresponding references in the body (e. G. “see table 2”)
Iv. Complete chart title (containing key information such as unit, sample volume, etc.)。
Minefield 5: ignore incomplete submission & author information。
Some of the newcomers only sent PDF papers, which were not clear about the author's unit, fund project, contact details. And let alone write a brief and proper submission. In fact, a good contribution letter can help you to quickly highlight the highlights of the study, explain why it is suitable for the journal, and show that there is no more input and no academic bias。
Template references: distinguished editor: hello! This paper is entitled " ... " , based on ... Data/theory, finds ... This study responds to the recent concerns of your magazine and is available for review. There is no conflict of interest. Thank you for your time and consideration
At the end
The contribution was not a “dice throw”, but a prepared dialogue. Avoiding these high frequency problems is not an attempt to please editors, but rather to demonstrate your professionalism, respect and sincerity as a researcher。
Remember: good research + good expression + good detail = higher recruitment possibilities。
