In our laboratory, starting from the master elder brother, the SCI sent is basically linked to who the participants are, and basically not to the related households. This time, I signed the author's name according to the previous situation, but I missed the seniors who have completed the preliminary work and graduated to study for a doctorate, as well as my actual applicant Professor L. It was wrong to miss the seniors, but I didn't think of Professor L in advance. Because Professor L has been transferred from our school for more than a year, he has little contact with the research group, and I am not very clear about his relationship with our project, so I really didn't think of adding him. So here, I would like to remind the first-time contributors that they must make sure the author's signature before writing an article, and try to ask the boss what it means and think it over. Maybe you are disgusted with adding contacts, but don't miss everyone who has made actual or potential contributions to the article. My boss didn't read these questions carefully before submitting my article, so later he found it was too late. So I think, maybe the boss won't review the manuscript for you, but they can still grasp some principled questions about the article, so try to show it to the boss before submitting it. If a problem like mine finally appears, it will be full of depression, because adding the author is always a sensitive thing. I'll talk about the solution later.
Besides, in my first draft, the boss is the second author and correspondent. After the revision came back, I asked him if he could put him behind when he was in a good mood, and he agreed (and later the lab began to use this practice). In this way, the students around you can become the second author, and maybe you can become the second author when your classmates write articles. Although many schools will not count your articles because of the second author, it is better than nothing for people who go abroad or look for jobs in general enterprises (although many bosses do this now, I think everything has a beginning). So, when the draft was revised, the name of the boss was changed to the end, and everyone else moved on. There was no mention of it in the response, and there was no problem at all in the end.
2. About image quality
Many bugs have also been asked on this question forum. Many journals require the picture quality to be 600dpi and TIF format. In fact, you can export this picture with drawing software such as PS or corel draw, then choose TIF format and 600dpi when exporting, and then choose LZW compression, and slightly change the size (10000X 10000 can be changed to 2000X2000, and if it is too big, a picture will be tens of megabytes).
3. About supporting information
Support information is a common part of ACS periodicals, and the article will be famous at the end. The content is generally some reference materials (such as detailed experimental process and experimental data) submitted to reviewers privately, but it is not published in the article (some for confidentiality, some for conciseness). At that time, due to lack of experience, some things that did not belong to this category were passed as evidence. Of course, it didn't have any influence when reviewing the manuscript, but the editor asked me to fill in the supporting information chapter according to the template in my reply. At this time, I went to see what the supporting materials were, and I realized that I had made an own goal. Alas, it's funny to think about it now. There is no choice but to write to the editor to ask, apply for not writing supporting information and admit your previous mistakes. Fortunately, the editor agreed without saying anything (in fact, these letters are all handled by the editor).
4. About catalog graphics
I often see bugs asking this question. This is not unique to ACS. It seems that publishing groups such as RSC also have this requirement. I don't know what this is. Later, after reading other people's articles, I realized that there was nothing mysterious. In fact, it is just a representative picture in your article (it can be a schematic diagram, an electron microscope, or a few pictures in the article combined and edited into a new picture). In addition to pictures, the directory of ACS should also have a description of no more than 60 words. That is, simply explain the central idea of your article. TOC does not emphasize standards in the first draft, but it is very important in the revision. Moreover, when modifying the draft, you can modify the TOC of the first draft without explaining it to the editor (I completely changed the picture and changed a lot of words).
5. About copyright
3, 4, and 5 are the key points that the editor asked to do well after the review comments came back. Copyright will be encountered in any submission, and we often see bugs asking copyright questions, which are nothing more than about the time of submitting copyright, how to fill in some specific places and how to give them to the editor. I ignored the copyright directly in the first draft, because I saw someone on Woodworm say that the copyright only has practical significance after it is received, which means that the late submission of copyright will not affect my normal review. Therefore, for everyone, if there are no special requirements, there is generally no need to submit copyright prematurely. The main way to fill in copyright is to type directly on it with pdf software. Just write the author's English name in the "original signature" in the same order as the author of your article. In addition, you may encounter words like "print the authorized name and title", which means the identity of the author. For example, Zhang San is a professor and Li Si is a master, so just enter "Zhang San (Professor) and Li Si (Master)" in the software here. After the copyright is filled in, scan it and send it to the editor (I scan it into a picture and send it back as a PDF).
6. About the reporter's email address.
Before submitting the manuscript, I just think that the correspondent's mailbox is just a mailbox, which is synonymous with the boss's mailbox. I didn't take it seriously, but it was the correspondent's mailbox that made me gain a lot of knowledge. I also used the boss's email address 126 before submitting the manuscript. Later, 20 days after submitting the manuscript, I suddenly received a reply from the reviewer (the system suddenly flew from the second part to the fifth step), which was really surprising at that time. Busy asking the boss, the boss opened it to have a look, only to find that as early as 10 days ago, the editor sent an email to the correspondent saying that he was inviting the reviewers to wait patiently … depressed … worried that they would be cut off directly by the editor. Later, because I had to ask the editor again, I was afraid that this would happen again, so I thought of changing the correspondent's mailbox, and the boss didn't have any opinions. So when I modified it, I directly changed the email address of the correspondent to the newly registered email address (the password I set). I hesitated for a long time whether to send an inquiry letter to the editor about changing the correspondent's mailbox. Later, I thought that I was afraid of making the editor angry (I have already inquired about it once because I have supporting materials). Fortunately, the editor didn't say anything, and it was successfully completed. Therefore, it is suggested that the bugs that are submitted for the first time, especially those that write their own articles, are written by the boss, yes, but it is best to use their own email or help the boss apply for a new one to handle this submission (of course, you can go to the boss's email password if you have the ability). So you won't be depressed like me in the future, and some things will be handled much faster (imagine, when an important email is lying in the boss's mailbox, the boss can't contact you or it's inconvenient to forward it to you, will you be depressed? )。 Because, in the process of submission, the editor will only contact the correspondent.
7. About "major repair" or "minor repair"
I found that many bugs are very concerned about this problem. It seems that the possibility of overhaul acceptance is 50-50, and the possibility of minor repairs is 80%. There is no hope of revision and re-investment. In fact, whether you can accept it or not depends on whether you can make changes according to the reviewers' opinions, not "overhaul" or "minor repair" These words are not as magical as the gold medal of "If I come in person". In addition, we can't ignore a situation other than overhaul and minor repair, "reinvest after modification". In fact, as long as it is improved, it is also very promising to re-invest, so many bugs in this state need not be discouraged at all. On the contrary, they should cheer up and conquer the last hurdle in one fell swoop. Generally speaking, some minor repairs on the forum were ignored and rejected because they were not revised according to the reviewers' opinions (the reviewers felt ignored), and some editors called back to resubmit them, but they resubmitted them according to the reviewers' opinions and accepted them directly. Therefore, I hope that the bugs just submitted will pay more attention to the essence (how to modify it) and less attention to the phenomenon (whether it is overhaul or minor repair).
8. Review of English
I saw many bugs asking how to change English. Let me talk about my experience. Two reviewers gave me a review, and the English evaluation was fairly fair. They said that "there were many mistakes in words" and asked me to correct them (actually only two were quoted). In fact, many times it is just the prejudice of reviewers against authors whose mother tongue is not English. In order to revise it carefully, I asked my senior brother to help me revise it again. I found my boss and asked him to ask his American classmates for help before I changed it. The idea of merging the two was finalized. Finally, in the original revised draft, all the revised places are marked in red, and listed in the reply: P 1, L 15 (gas) → P2, L 15 (gas), to show that I really revised the language of the article. Finally, smoothly, neither commentator mentioned language.
9. About quoting unpublished references
I have seen this question on the forum several times. I also met this time. Let me tell you something. I have an important document that has not been published yet. I quoted it and it was replaced by "in the news". But then I thought it was wrong. References only have the author's name (and it is China's article, the name is abbreviated), and there is no page number and title. How do others search?
10. About the waiting time from the second trial to the reception
At this point, too many bugs are worrying. Almost every day, bugs ask this question. I also understand how everyone feels. After all, I am one of them. But after the revised draft is submitted, I can't wait to refresh my email 100 times a day. There was no news for a week, and people began to be very anxious and depressed. In fact, like everyone else, I am in such a hurry because I read some posts on the forum saying that it will be received the same day or a week after the revision. I think this time is the theorem. In addition, we all have an inertia idea, that is, as long as it is that long (1, 2 months, and the second trial cannot exceed 1 month). In fact, it may be like this, and even most of the situations I have seen have been received for more than a month or even longer. Because, for the manuscript that may be received, we should also consider the publishing arrangement and the workload of editing. Here, I am very grateful to brother Thomas2000 for comforting me at that time. I subscribed to a periodical with him, overhauling it 1 month and making minor repairs for 4 months, and said that "no news is good news". It calmed my anxiety. I even used this time to play outside for half a month, hehe.
1 1. About adding authors
The previous point 1 mentioned that I didn't list Master Brother and Professor L as authors. There is no increase when it is revised (in fact, it is a good opportunity to increase the chances of the author when it is revised). It was only after I received it that I found that the master elder brother was missing (but I still didn't remember Professor L, Khan). This situation is believed to have been encountered by insects. At this time, I wrote a letter directly to the editor-in-chief of the journal (not the publishing editorial department, although the manuscript has been transferred to the publishing editorial department for typesetting), describing my negligence and some contributions from my seniors (doing a lot of preliminary research and providing a lot of theoretical basis), and finally attaching a sentence "I wonder if we can make up for our negligence" (see Annex 3 on the second floor for specific writing). After it was distributed, the editor quickly agreed (added as two works). But I still missed Professor L, which is also my great regret. Later, I tried this trick when I was proofing, but it didn't work. The editor refused. So I hope everyone will decide the author and everything from the beginning, so as to save a lot of trouble later. Even if you want to add it, you should add it when you modify it. It's ok to modify it, but you only have one chance to contact the editor as soon as possible. By the way, the author must attach a new copyright when applying for adding ~ ~
12. About replacing illustrations
After receiving it, I found that the color printing of the periodical was free (sweat). After receiving it, I wrote to the editor to change the color schematic diagram and attached pictures (and the email written by the author, the specific writing method is attached to Annex 3 on the second floor). The editor agreed quickly, no problem. I'm just saying this to make it clear that you'd better take all these into account when drafting or revising for the first time, and don't make a fuss like me.
13. About the evidence
The proof of ACS is very convenient for users. The editor helped me to revise many language problems, and then typeset and marked the revised places. There is basically no problem, just write back in a few words.
14. I still have some experience.
Don't call me superstitious. Even if I don't have gold coins, I will definitely get a good post by reading the article of blessing, and I will be comforted by seeing the rejection. I want to send blessings and comfort to others, I will feel better, maybe my character will be improved, and I will be more confident when posting next time, hehe. At that time, many bugs gave me encouragement and help when I revised it, which gave me the confidence and motivation to revise the article and receive it smoothly. Care and encourage others more, and you will get a little happiness. One day, happy things will happen to you, Chuang ~ ~ ~
Summary:
In fact, I have said so many experiences in submitting manuscripts, most of which are lessons. I hope that you will not make the same mistakes as me, take fewer detours, and keep a peaceful mind in the process of submitting manuscripts. It's a mess. You can choose what you are interested in.
Finally, I wish the submission success.