More than 10 reviews this year, and found that 2 major research issues are prominent

Text | Peng Bo (Professor of the School of Resources and Environmental Sciences of Hunan Normal University)

Since the beginning of this year, more than 10 journals (so -called TOP journals, 5 professional journals) have been reviewed by ELSEVIER's journals (all of them), plus several articles on rejection, average invitations to 2 papers for review. Most of the articles on review are contributions of domestic authors.

I have talked about the role of papers before, and today I feel that thesis is still a reflection of the current status of scientific research or some scientific research issues. Here is a shallow analysis.

In order to write this article, the conclusion of reviewing the review of each papers was deliberately reviewed and found that most of the conclusions of the review of the "refusal" were found.

Some of these articles, I give the rejection conclusion, and other reviewers have also reached the conclusion of the rejection and finally rejected the manuscript; some articles are my review conclusion that the conclusion of the review is Major Revision, but because other reviewers have reached the rejection of the draft, Conclusion and finally rejected the manuscript.

That is to say, at the time of reviewing the manuscript, my attitude towards the dissertation is not more harsh and higher than other reviewers, but it is properly retained.

The problems reflected in these papers personally think that it should still attract the attention of related parties. Although the thesis is not the whole of scientific research, and the paper is not the only indicator of scientific research, the paper is one of the important forms of academic exchanges and one of the important contents of scientific research. Especially the problems embodied by the dissertations of many authors, different authors and different authors, is the problem.

Judging from the more than 10 papers on the comment, I feel that the following two issues deserve attention and attention. (Note that the phenomenon mentioned below does not necessarily correspond to the review conclusion obtained by the author, do not go to the seat!)

The first question is to get funding from the subject. There are two articles, as research papers (non -review papers), but there is no data from the beginning to the end, and the manuscript is also invested and was sent out for trial.

When I reviewed these two papers, I found that they were the dissertations from the greater cattle author or its research group. Because the author's thesis has issued a number of sparkling N -level topics in the Acknowledgments in the back.

With so many funding funding, the submitted submission papers do not have their own and first -hand data. All the data is quoted from the documents published by the predecessors, or only the picture in the paper to express the results, but there is no one to express the results, but there is no one to express the results, but there is no picture, but there is no picture, but there is no picture, but there is no picture, but there is no picture. A original data.

In my opinion, in the case of such fierce competition in scientific research, he was fortunate to get funding but did not do anything at all, or if he wanted to send out the article before you did something to prepare for the use of the problem.

To put it more importantly, it is speculative scientific research. If the topic from the opening to the topic, there is no own data, or the specific scientific research work is not carried out according to the design of the subject.

Think of several graduate students asking me about data, samples, etc. through emails, and I think that the scientific research phenomenon of this inaction really exists objectively to a certain extent. Therefore, in addition to reading the paper, the subject should also have a stricter way to examine.

The second question is to get funding from the subject. This scientific research that cuts and cuts the mealing is not to carry out work solid and seriously, but to conduct scientific research on dragonflies and itching.

For example, 3 articles studying rivers, one of which discusses pollution problems covering tens of thousands of square kilometers, but the material provided is the analysis data of dozens of samples, and then evaluate the right evaluation, this statistical analysis statistical analysis In one way, some conclusions and cognitions that are painful and itchy. At the end of the paper, there were multiple N -level topics on the Department.

There is also an article studying the problem of rivers pollution of more than thousands of kilometers. The materials that can be provided can be provided with dozens of sample analysis data, and the original analysis results are not provided (the original analysis results can reflect the work and data of work and data Reliability), concluding some macro -decision -making conclusions and understanding is also a funding of multiple N -level topics on the department.

There is also an article discussed multiple cross -provincial rivers pollution problems, and it is also the analysis data of dozens of samples, and then repeatedly analyzed and evaluated. Funding for a level N subject.

When studying large -scale and large -scale river pollution problems, the most basic point is to obtain representative samples and reliable analysis results. Otherwise, the statistical analysis and its model are advanced and high -end, and the article is also "air tower" and "water -free water". Failure to meet the basic requirements of scientific research.

Without the funding of multiple N -level topics on the department, it doesn't matter if you entertain and entertain. However, your submission papers have the funding of multiple N -level topics, which cannot be treated according to self -entertainment, which reflects a attitude to deal with scientific research. In particular, the authenticity of the author's scientific research part of the scientific research work that the author has received a lot of funds and multiple topics. Therefore, the author personally believes that the scientific research topic has reached the time of strict control.

Perhaps, I hope that the scientific research issues in the process of reviewing above do not exist in reality, or just a few individual situations. As an ordinary scientific researcher, I would like to say that "if there is no change," to encourage it.

Reprinted this article, please contact the original author to get authorization. At the same time, please indicate that this article comes from Peng Bo Science Network blog. link address:

https://blog.scienceNet.cn/blog-279096-1354006.html

/>

Edit | Fangyuan

Capture | Guo Gang

Cooperation: [email protected]

Submission: [email protected]

- END -