龙岩张天洲调任哪里:【经验】2011年一篇SCI论文的投稿过程（重现从投稿到接受邮件往来全过程，包括Respo...

Date: 15 Dec 2010
To: "LV Penghui" ph@nimte.ac.cn
From: "Scientometrics" Vijay.Kumar@springer.com
Subject: revise before review

Dear Mr. Lv Penghui,
This is to acknowledge your manuscript SCIM 1078. Unfortunately the English of the text is very poor being at just the limit of legibility. You are strongly recommended to make use of the assistance of possibly a native English colleague for amending and improving style and Grammar of your manuscript. You are also invited to browse the recommendations to authors of Scientometrics.
We are looking forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript at your earliest convenience.
With best regards,
Tibor Braun

Date: 05 Jan 2011
To: "LV Peng-Hui" ph@nimte.ac.cn
From: "Scientometrics" Udayasree.Daruvuru@springer.com
Subject: Thank you for your approval
Dear Mr LV Peng-Hui

Date: 24 Jan 2011
To: "LV Peng-Hui" ph@nimte.ac.cn
From: "Scientometrics" Udayasree.Daruvuru@springer.com
Subject: Major Revisions requested SCIM1078R1
Dear Mr LV Peng-Hui,
We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research", which you submitted to Scientometrics.
Based on the advice received, I feel that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions.
When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are below, and submit a list of responses to the comments.
If one or more reviewers have uploaded files related to their reviews, these files can be found online.
In order to submit your revised manuscript, please access the following web site:
http://scim.edmgr.com/
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript within
eight weeks.
With kind regards,
Tibor Braun
Editor in Chief

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:
Reviewer: The reviewer recommends publication only after major revisions (and reduction)!
First of all, the English is far from adequate and should by all means be corrected by a native speaker. The reviewer's language related objections concern (1) missing articles (a, the), (2) singular and plural (e.g. outputs, impacts), (3) present and past tense (figure/table x shows, figure/table y showed etc.), and (4) many incorrect and misleading phrases (e.g. "on the graph only has presented on available period" on page 2 or "shows the total times that a particular article cited by the journals listed" on page 7).
Page 2: At the beginning of section A, the search platform consulted (WoS?) and the SCI search query should be mentioned and discussed.
Page 2: The phrase "The impact factor of SCI papers ..." at the bottom of page 2 is inappropriate: There are only impact factors for journals as a whole and not for single papers!
Page 4: The listing of the SCI subject categories of the graphene related publications is unneeded because all categories appear in figure 2 below.
Page 7: The bars showing the time periods prior to 2006 are hardly visible in figure 7 and should be scaled up for better visualization.
Page 8: Figure 8 shows an example for the (well-known) skewed citation distribution of ensembles of papers and contains only marginal additional information.
Page 8-9: The data presented in figure 9 and table 3 would be much more meaningful in comparison with the literature of other topics or with the chemistry or physics literature as a whole.
Page 9-10: The most-frequently used author keywords are hardly meaningful with regard to a real content analysis. An in-depth analysis based on subject-specific literature databases like CAS or INSPEC would be much more abundant.
Section B (on pages 10-14): Due to the relatively low overall number of graphene related conference items, it can hardly be justified to present all analogous graphs and tables out of section A. The listing of the subject categories on page 11 and the figures 15-17 could be removed without significant loss of information.
Page 16: The pie chart given in figure 20 is somewhat confusing and should be presented in plan view as in figure 9.
Page 17: The statement at the beginning of the conclusions "In this study, the impact of global graphene research was first recalled and ..." is not correct: See for example http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3320

Dear Prof. Tibor Braun,
Thank you very much for your letter dated 24th Jan, and the comments from reviewer. I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript SCIM1078. According with your advice, we revised the relevant parts in the manuscript for your approval.
Based on the reviewer’s comments and requests, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. All the questions were answered below.
Should you have any questions, please contact us without any hesitate.
With all my best regards!

List of actions:
Comment 1: The reviewer's language related objections concern (1) missing articles (a, the), (2) singular and plural (e.g. outputs, impacts), (3) present and past tense (figure/table x shows, figure/table y showed etc.), and (4) many incorrect and misleading phrases (e.g. "on the graph only has presented on available period" on page 2 or "shows the total times that a particular article cited by the journals listed" on page 7).
Response: All mistakes mentioned above have been corrected in this paper already. About the English writing of the manuscript, we asked for a native English speaker to revise the paper before submitted to the magazine this time.
Comment 2: Page 2: At the beginning of section A, the search platform consulted (WoS?) and the SCI search query should be mentioned and discussed.
Response: Search platforms which were main performed in SCI, DII and CPCI database of WoS and the search query were discussed in page 2 of the revised version.
Comment 3: Page 2: The phrase "The impact factor of SCI papers ..." at the bottom of page 2 is inappropriate: There are only impact factors for journals as a whole and not for single papers!
Response: Thanks a lot for the reviewer’s comment, the impact factor of SCI papers have been changed to the impact factor (IF) of SCI journals in page 2 according with the valuable comment.
Comment 4: Page 4: The listing of the SCI subject categories of the graphene related publications is unneeded because all categories appear in figure 2 below.
Response: The listing of the SCI subject categories has been romoved from page 4 and the publication number of every category was shown in bold for emphasis.
Comment 5: Page 7: The bars showing the time periods prior to 2006 are hardly visible in figure 7 and should be scaled up for better visualization.
Response: Compared with other bars before 2006 the bar showing the time period of 2006 to 2010 has been scaled down to 1/3 of the former for better visualization.
Comment 6: Page 8: Figure 8 shows an example for the (well-known) skewed citation distribution of ensembles of papers and contains only marginal additional information.
Response: The figure of annual cited times distribution of SCI papers have been rearranged so that the regularity became more clearly. The obvious increase curve linear starts from 2007, see 1 to 5 times cited curve on figure 8.
Comment 7: Page 8-9: The data presented in figure 9 and table 3 would be much more meaningful in comparison with the literature of other topics or with the chemistry or physics literature as a whole.
Response: Thanks for this precious advice, from the collaboration on the 1-3 scientists research term in figure 9 as well as table 3, a model is used to explain the probability where the auhors may come from.
Comment 8: Page 9-10: The most-frequently used author keywords are hardly meaningful with regard to a real content analysis. An in-depth analysis based on subject-specific literature databases like CAS or INSPEC would be much more abundant.
Response: For the limitation on the subject-specific literature databases in Wuhan Document and Information Center, the data records are hardly obtained in these days. The most frequently used author keywords can also show the relevance between the research of graphene and other topics as well as the development history.
Comment 9: Section B: Due to the relatively low overall number of graphene related conference items, it can hardly be justified to present all analogous graphs and tables out of section A. The listing of the subject categories on page 11 and the figures 15-17 could be removed without significant loss of information.
Response: The listing of the subject categories on page 11 and figures 15-17 have been removed and the relevant explainations have been corrected.
Comment 10: Page 16: The pie chart given in figure 20 is somewhat confusing and should be presented in plan view as in figure 9.
Response: The pie chart in figure 20 has been redrawed as figure 9 do.
Comment 11: Page 17: The statement at the beginning of the conclusions "In this study, the impact of global graphene research was first recalled and ..." is not correct: See for example http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3320
Response: After studying and citing of the paper “Graphene - A rising star in view of scientometrics”, the statement at the beginning of the conclusions has been revised.
Peng-hui Lv
Feb 21th, 2011

Date: 24 Mar 2011
To: "LV Peng-Hui" ph@nimte.ac.cn
From: "Scientometrics" Udayasree.Daruvuru@springer.com
Subject: Your Submission SCIM1078R2

Dear Mr LV Peng-Hui,
We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research", submitted to Scientometrics
Based on the advice received, I have decided that your manuscript can be accepted for publication after you have carried out the corrections as suggested by the reviewer(s.
Below, please find the reviewers' comments for your perusal.
If one or more reviewers have uploaded files related to their reviews, these files can be found online.
Please submit your revised manuscript online by using
the Editorial Manager system which can be accessed at:
http://scim.edmgr.com/
Please also submit your response to the reviewers' comments online.
I am looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript
within four weeks time.
With kind regards,
Tibor Braun
Editor in Chief
Comments for the Author:
Reviewer : Dear authors,
the objections of the reviewer with regard to contents have been considered in the revised version. However, the spelling and wording is still not satisfactory (in particular with respect to the pages 1-3). The reviewer has marked the questionable terms in the proofs and has added comments and suggestions to be considered as far as possible.

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and comments on our manuscript entitled "Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research" (ID：SCIM1078). We have considered comments and suggestions carefully and revised the questionable terms to meet your approval.
For more comments and suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much for your letter.
Sincerely,
Peng-hui Lv
March 28, 2011.

Date: 24 Mar 2011
To: "LV Peng-Hui" ph@nimte.ac.cn
From: "Scientometrics" Udayasree.Daruvuru@springer.com
Subject: Your Submission SCIM1078R2

Dear Mr LV Peng-Hui,
We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, "Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research", has been accepted for publication in Scientometrics.
You will receive an e-mail from Springer in due course with regards to the following items:
1. Offprints
2. Colour figures
3. Open Choice
4. Transfer of Copyright
Please remember to quote the manuscript number, SCIM1078R3 , whenever inquiring about your manuscript.
With best regards,
Tibor Braun
Editor in Chief

Date: 04 Apr 2011
To: "LV Peng-Hui" ph@nimte.ac.cn
From: "Scientometrics" Udayasree.Daruvuru@springer.com
Subject: Your Submission SCIM1078R3
Dear Mr. LV Peng-Hui,
I am glad to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in SCIENTOMETRICS.
There is a long series of accepted papers waiting for publication that's why I am unable to tell when it will appear. An official notification will follow in due time.
Thanking you for choosing our journal for the publication of your results.
With best regards,
Tibor Braun

Date: 2011-04-06 21:46:40
From: Springer
To: ph@nimte.ac.cn
Subject: Your article in Scientometrics (386): Information Required

Dear Author,
Thank you for publishing with Springer. This message is to let you know that your article
Article title: Bibliometric trend analysis on global graphene research
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0386-x
has gone into production. Before we can send you your proofs, we have to ask you to provide some additional information.
In order for the publication of your article to proceed you must go to the above website and complete the request. The entire process should take about 10 minutes.
You can help us facilitate rapid publication by returning your answers within 2 working days.
PLEASE NOTE: This link expires WITHIN 7 DAYS after this e-mail has been sent to you so please make sure you complete the request before this date.
This is an automated e-mail; please do not reply to this account. If you have any questions, please go to our help pages .
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Springer Author Services