It is the responsibility of basic researchers to publish academic papers in international core journals. The number of papers published by high-impact journals is obviously a more objective indicator of the level of basic research. Robert Day pointed out in the preface of his famous book "How to Write and Publish Scientific Papers": "The evaluation of a scientist, starting from a graduate student, is mainly based on his agility in laboratory operation, his inherent knowledge in a wide or narrow research field, not based on his cleverness and charm, but on his writings. They are famous for this, "or still unknown. "He led the publication of American Society for Microbiology 19 and was the editor-in-chief of Bacteriology magazine. His profound insights are worth thinking about by colleagues engaged in basic research.

1. Originality and uniqueness are the life of a paper.

As Academician Zou Chenglu pointed out in Re-discussion on Scientific Ethics, the papers published in international core journals should, in principle, be the new observation and experimental facts described for the first time in the world, the concepts and models proposed for the first time, and the equations established for the first time, including the new generalization of the existing major observation (experimental) facts and the refinement of new laws. Associated with originality, any journal does not want to publish papers that have been published in other magazines, or papers published in other languages, or papers published in a slightly different form. Harvey, editor-in-chief of Solar Physics, an authoritative journal of solar physics, once mentioned that a few authors published their main achievements in Chinese and sent them to space physics. He stressed that this was tolerable in the past, but it is not allowed now. It is an accepted principle that an author cannot publish the main results published in peer-reviewed magazines to other magazines in different forms. Papers published in international core journals should not only be original, but also have remarkable achievements to promote the development of the discipline. In Harvey's words, "at least one or two other researchers will read this article and use these results to publish their own work." The test of the significance of the results is how many papers are cited. Authors should pay attention to the citation of their papers, the evaluation of their work by international academic circles, including the aspects of affirmation and criticism, and especially pay attention to the different understanding of their published achievements by peers. This is an important way to improve your research level.

2. Fully evaluate the existing work

Whether to evaluate the author's previous works objectively and fully is often an important aspect for critics and readers to measure the author's academic level and style. Some of our authors are often willing to quote the works of well-known foreign scholars, which smacks of "words must be called Greece", but they do not pay enough attention to the works published by their domestic counterparts. Sometimes it is obvious that the first work done by China scholars has not been fully evaluated by their domestic counterparts. We should advocate more and more appropriate references to the work of domestic counterparts. But don't learn from a few Japanese authors, who rarely quote articles other than Japanese scholars. Some colleagues quoted a considerable number of formulas in their papers, but did not list the sources of the formulas, which made readers confused whether they were developed by the author or quoted the previous work of others. In principle, in addition to the equations and expressions recognized in textbooks, the derivation of specific purposes, specific conditions and problems, as long as it is not the author's own work, should list the source and applicable conditions; Even if it is the author's own past works, the corresponding literature should be listed for readers' reference when necessary.

On the basis of fully evaluating the previous work, the author should clearly point out his original contribution in the current work. This is the performance of the author's responsibility for science, and it is the content that must be clearly written at the beginning of a good academic paper.

3. Pay special attention to the title, abstract, chart and conclusion of the paper.

Every author has the experience of reading a lot of papers. Readers' habit of reading papers is generally to browse the catalogue first, and only if they are interested in the topic are they willing to turn to the relevant papers; For papers interested in a topic, readers should read the abstract first; If you are still interested in the abstract, you will look at the chart of the paper, because the chart often reflects the result of the paper most clearly. After reading the chart, if the reader is still interested, continue to read the conclusion of the paper. Usually only a few readers will read the full text of the paper.

The author should know clearly that the title of the paper will be read by thousands of readers. Carefully choose every word of the project, and use the least words to reflect the content of the paper most accurately.

5. Correctly treat review opinions and rejections.

The reviewers of international core journals are mostly authoritative scholars in various fields. The magazine publishing association often consults the editorial board to select the best peer review team. Comments are free. Most reviewers are extremely serious about their work. We should respect the opinions of peer review, carefully analyze every criticism and suggestion, and revise the paper accordingly. If you think your opinion is incorrect, you should answer it very carefully and have a reasonable discussion with the reviewers.

How to treat papers rejected by magazines is often a difficult problem for the author. The reasons for rejection must be analyzed here. The first kind of rejection is a kind of "complete rejection", and the editor-in-chief usually expresses an opinion. He never wants to see such an article again, and it is meaningless to send such an article again. One is that the article contains some useful data and information, and the editor-in-chief rejects such articles because there are serious defects in the data or analysis. The author of this kind of article might as well put it aside for a while, and then send the revised "new" article to the same magazine when he finds more extensive evidence to support it or has a clearer conclusion. The editor-in-chief will usually consider accepting this kind of article again. In the past two years, at least two reviewers complained to the author that some colleagues in China sent their papers to another magazine intact after being rejected by one magazine and invited them to review them again. They are very disgusted with this. When talking about this issue, Thomas, the scientific editor-in-chief of the Journal of Astrophysics, said, "It is a terrible mistake to send a paper to another magazine without modification after being rejected by one magazine. Usually, the reviewers have done serious work to point out the problems of the paper and put forward suggestions for revision. If the author ignores these suggestions, it is a waste of time and energy. At the same time, sending a bad article is a serious damage to the author's scientific reputation. " In fact, academic journals with different influence factors have different acceptance standards and requirements for papers. If the rejected paper is not due to mistakes in the manuscript, but is not important enough or innovative enough, then the author is considering it carefully.

The opinions of reviewers can be sent to academic journals with low impact factors after careful revision of the manuscript. It is worth noting that due to the limitation of knowledge, some prejudices and even different academic opinions, reviewers will make mistakes in judgment and suggest rejection. There are two examples of how to deal with this situation. Recently a young man's paper was rejected by a magazine. After repeated discussions and tests, we judged that the reviewer was wrong. In order to publish the paper in time, we suggest that the author write back to the editor-in-chief politely and seriously, point out the mistakes of the reviewers, and ask the editor-in-chief to convey his opinions to the reviewers, then withdraw the paper, make necessary improvements, and send it to another magazine with higher impact factor. This paper was immediately accepted and well received. In this case, the paper was sent to other magazines without major revision. However, the author responsibly asked the editor-in-chief to forward his comments to the reviewers. In this case, the author should not be restricted and blamed for sending other magazines. But the premise is that the results of the paper have been repeatedly tested and the correctness of the paper is accurately grasped. A paper by the author group was published in an important magazine for two and a half years, mainly because the first reviewer questioned the reliability of vector magnetic field measurement in China and did not agree to publish this paper. By consulting authoritative colleagues and thinking repeatedly, we confirm that the research and measurement adopted are completely accurate and reliable. The author spent nearly two years discussing with the reviewers, not only published the paper, but also established a good relationship with the reviewers and editors. After this paper was published, it was widely cited in the world.

7. Strive to improve English writing.

English is not our mother tongue. English writing is the most difficult part in English learning. There are few SCI papers and citations in China. In addition to the limitation of basic research level, language barriers can not be ignored. Every basic researcher must regard improving English writing ability as an arduous task. Here are three successful experiences for reference. Professor Hu Youqiu of China University of Science and Technology always copies the English revisions of the reviewers and the revisions of his own manuscript in a separate notebook, and compares them one by one. Think hard and learn by rote, and improve your English writing level bit by bit. His papers sent to international core journals are often called well-written by reviewers. The National Solar Observatory of the United States has an internal peer review system, the main purpose of which is to ensure the correctness of the paper, and at the same time, it also influences each other and is conducive to research. Papers without internal review cannot be sent to magazines. Sara Martin, a senior solar physicist, suggested to find some papers that can be used as examples to read intensively and learn how to organize and write English well. She especially mentioned the paper of the late famous astrophysicist Zwan, which can be used as a model essay to follow. After the first draft of the paper is completed, you must do a spelling check to avoid simple spelling mistakes. If you are not sure about your English writing, please find a colleague with good English and a foreign colleague to make English necessary. In order to fundamentally improve the English level of China scholars, we suggest that English writing courses must be offered for graduate students. Writing English really requires a turnaround.