b****u
发帖数: 903 | 1 几乎相同的story，别人刚发表在ncb，师弟的文章在embo修回，review意见想当
postive，但还有一个小实验在补，advisor一定要补完了再投回去。投回去会被接收？
还是直接拒了？有经验的给点意见，多谢指点。 |
b******n
发帖数: 4225 | 2 一般是补完就接受发表了吧
【在 b****u 的大作中提到】
: 几乎相同的story，别人刚发表在ncb，师弟的文章在embo修回，review意见想当
: postive，但还有一个小实验在补，advisor一定要补完了再投回去。投回去会被接收？
: 还是直接拒了？有经验的给点意见，多谢指点。
|
p*****m
发帖数: 7030 | 3 这种挺郁闷的。。让你们老板给editor打电话问问吧 看看他怎么想 强调一下你们东西
有什么不一样 有什么能互补的。
我知道Nature系列的说法是 如果re-submit以后第二轮review期间出来了别人的文章不
要紧 如果还没re-submit的话就会有问题，不知道emboj会不会也是一样的
【在 b****u 的大作中提到】
: 几乎相同的story，别人刚发表在ncb，师弟的文章在embo修回，review意见想当
: postive，但还有一个小实验在补，advisor一定要补完了再投回去。投回去会被接收？
: 还是直接拒了？有经验的给点意见，多谢指点。
|
n********k
发帖数: 2818 | 4 top journals care about novelty but little journals don't...so it would
depend on EJ's policy... should be stated in the guide...
【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】
: 这种挺郁闷的。。让你们老板给editor打电话问问吧 看看他怎么想 强调一下你们东西
: 有什么不一样 有什么能互补的。
: 我知道Nature系列的说法是 如果re-submit以后第二轮review期间出来了别人的文章不
: 要紧 如果还没re-submit的话就会有问题，不知道emboj会不会也是一样的
|
w*e
发帖数: 740 | 5 我觉得问题不是很大
公平的EDITOR会让你过的，只要你认真地补大部分的实验，认真写REBUTTAL LETTER
EMBO 毕竟不是CNS这种的杂志
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: top journals care about novelty but little journals don't...so it would
: depend on EJ's policy... should be stated in the guide...
|
M*****n
发帖数: 16729 | 6 it is clearly stated in Nature Journals' editor's decision letter: in a
situation like this, you don't have a chance.
read the editor's letter, it should be stated there. otherwise, you are ok. |
w*e
发帖数: 740 | 7 这个也看是NATURE或者NATURE-XX的文章，EMBO不是这个级别的
我就不相信NPG 下面几分的文章
也这么要求
【在 M*****n 的大作中提到】
: it is clearly stated in Nature Journals' editor's decision letter: in a
: situation like this, you don't have a chance.
: read the editor's letter, it should be stated there. otherwise, you are ok.
|
z****g
发帖数: 3340 | 8 楼上有位说得很清楚。俺的第二篇Nature就是这样活活死掉了。同样一片跟我一样投
Nature，另外一个实验室，在CELL那篇出来之前revision后resubmitted，就没问题.
俺的被拒了, 那篇仅仅比我早不到一个星期。
【在 b****u 的大作中提到】
: 几乎相同的story，别人刚发表在ncb，师弟的文章在embo修回，review意见想当
: postive，但还有一个小实验在补，advisor一定要补完了再投回去。投回去会被接收？
: 还是直接拒了？有经验的给点意见，多谢指点。
|
b****u
发帖数: 903 | 9 thanks for all your nice answers! It seems like the competition is pretty
cruel in similar field! |
l****y
发帖数: 398 | 10 from embo j, current issue.
"Scooping protection
Molecular cell biology is a rather competitive discipline. The next big open
questions rarely occur to only one researcher. Technical and research
advances, as well as funding priorities, encourage multiple laboratories to
pursue similar directions. In contrast to other disciplines, experiments are
quickly executed and often don′t require unique hardware or expertise.
Derivative work will not be accepted in a highly selective journal such as
this. However, in our view, work that has been scooped is not necessarily
derivative. We certainly don′t want to encourage premature publication to
claim first discovery and we appreciate that authors who go the extra mile
to cross every t and dot every i, who delve further in mechanism or expand
the physiological significance of their findings run the risk of being
scooped. We want to encourage broad and deep studies over ‘salami slices’.
For this reason, it is editorial policy that a study will not be rejected
on account of having been scooped while it is under consideration. Where
additional experimentation is required, we will specify when to expect a
revision (usually around 3 months). In this period, an author is also immune
from rejection due to scooping, as long as related publications are
immediately discussed with the editor so as to minimize delays. If there is
good reason that a revision will take longer than specified and no related
literature has appeared, we will usually be able to extend the deadline."
【在 b****u 的大作中提到】
: 几乎相同的story，别人刚发表在ncb，师弟的文章在embo修回，review意见想当
: postive，但还有一个小实验在补，advisor一定要补完了再投回去。投回去会被接收？
: 还是直接拒了？有经验的给点意见，多谢指点。
|
