I Have A Research Support System - Chapter 439

Xu Qiu was in a corner of the classroom, operating a laptop and logging in to the school mailbox.

It didn’t take long for him to receive two emails forwarded by Wei Xingsi, namely “Joule” and AM’s review comments.

Xu Qiu first opened the review comments of the “Joule” review and browsed it roughly.

There are three reviewers, all of which are positive, while the editor’s comments are minor changes.

Among them, the opinion of the first reviewer is “suggested articles to be published directly”.

At the same time, he also sang praises and blew a wave of Xu Qiu and Wei Xingsi’s contributions to the field of organic photovoltaics, saying: “The development of the ITIC series is of great significance…”

In fact, the other party changed and put a paragraph from Xu Qiu’s article in “Joule” that judged the work in his group, and then put it up.

From the point of view of the text, the reviewer should be a domestic researcher.

Xu Qiu speculated that he had benefited from the ITIC series of materials, and I have rubbed a few articles. Therefore, I am particularly grateful to the original author. I can’t tell who it is.

The second reviewer, obviously also a domestic researcher, reviews the manuscript in a template style, first reviews a paragraph, and then lists the suggestions separately.

However, this time there is only one suggestion, which is to kindly point out the “incomplete citations in the article” and attach the DOI numbers of the three suggested citations.

Xu Qiu checked these three documents and two of them were published in the new issue of RRL.

This new journal is a journal of Wiley that specifically contains photovoltaic-related articles. When the AM vote in the group was rejected, he was advised to transfer this journal. At that time, Wei Xingsi naturally did not.

At the same time, this journal is estimated to be in the second or third district. It is not clear if there is a chance to go to the first district, and it is temporarily not in the literature search database in the group.

The other is the latest CM article. When Xu Qiu wrote the review before, this CM had not been published, so it was not included in the review article.

The corresponding authors of the three articles are all Bao Yuanyou from Beijing Airlines University, so there is a high probability that the reviewer also Bao Yuanyou did not run.

Xu Qiu inserted all the three documents into the corresponding positions in the review article, but the content of the main text was not added, that is, no corresponding text description was added.

Because this review mainly talks about the work of Wei Xingsi’s group, the work of other research groups, except for Xu Zhenghong and their IDTBR, which were separately brought out and mentioned a few sentences, the rest of the work is not necessary.

Moreover, the average researcher doesn’t care if you start writing their work in the review, but mainly care if you cite their articles.

No way, who makes the number of citations generally valued in scientific research circles nowadays, both at home and abroad.

Xu Qiu’s specific handling method is as follows:

Original: “…In addition, some researchers have done similar work [7-10].”

After revision: “…In addition, some researchers have done similar work [7-13].”

There are three more references, but the citation number is changed from [7-10] to [7-13].

Of course, the problem is that the order of subsequent documents is all messed up and needs to be rearranged again.

If it was Wei Xingsi, when a reviewer suggested to cite a document, he would normally not cite a document that is not in his reading library unless the article is really a must.

In other words, he would only cite the relatively high-grade CM, and not the other two RRLs.

Wei Xingsi believes: “Reviewers have the right to make suggestions, and the authors of the article have the right not to adopt suggestions. As long as they can provide reasonable reasons, the editors have their own judgments and will not rely solely on the opinions of the reviewers. Decide on an article.”

However, Xu Qiu is still more kind-hearted (from the heart?), so he doesn’t simply pick and choose, so he quotes them all.

The third reviewer is likely to be a foreigner.

The review comments are written “casually”, with a lot of colloquial expressions.

At the beginning, I also praised the work of Xu Qiu and Wei Xingsi’s ITIC series, and called this series of work “BIGbreakthrough”.

This is also an expression that some crooked nuts like. When expressing emphasis, the entire word is changed to capital letters.

If it is emphasized in China, the form of expression in writing is to draw two dots below the word, but there are relatively few cases, which may only be found in Chinese textbooks, usually using “” or even.

After that, the reviewer also put forward some very specific comments, a little bit of thoughts, where to say what to say, not the sort of itemized list, and so on:

“Why don’t the authors talk about how you came up with the structure of ICIN?”

“What do you think are the similarities and differences between the ICIN unit and the similar Rao Danning structure? What makes the performance difference between the two?”

“What do you think is the efficiency limit in the field of organic photovoltaics in the past three years?”

“…”

Although there are many problems, but fortunately, they are all small problems, and they can be regarded as helping to make up the quality of the article and make the article more perfect.

No money to read novels? Give you cash or points, and receive it in 1 day within a limited time! Follow the public·public·number【Book Friends Base Camp】, get it for free!

In fact, this is also the original intention of the scientific research circle to establish peer review, that is, to improve the quality of published papers.

But I don’t know when it started, and the taste has changed a bit. Nowadays, peer review often picks up each other’s work and picks the bones from the eggs…

However, think about it carefully, this is actually a problem that must be faced in the development and growth of a field.

At the very beginning, a small group of enthusiasts usually gather together to set up an organization. Inside the organization are like-minded people. They are basically for love. They are not so concerned about the gains and losses, and the goals are highly consistent.

As the organization slowly grows and grows, the threshold is gradually lowered, and newcomers are continuously absorbed. The quality of the newcomers is uneven, and everyone has their own demands, which leads to a deviation from the original appearance in the development process.

Take the scientific research circle as an example. In the early days, they were a small group of rich people. After they got used to the feasting life, they tried to find some spiritual pursuits and began to conduct various scientific researches purely for hobbies. Most of them Not for fame or fortune.

But now the threshold to engage in scientific research is very low, and scientific research itself has gradually evolved into a profession and a job.

Similarly, forcing people, Xiaopozhan, or the early Internet communities, all the elites who are interested in emerging things can reach, and the threshold is very high.

At that time, it was not “forced”, and it was all about science popularization and sharing.

And now it’s either “people are in Proxima, just got off the spacecraft, earning 100 million cosmic coins in one second”, or there are various marketing accounts, which are very hostile and will lead to war at every turn.

Only the hot list is left to take a look at and learn about recent news.

Xu Qiu coded words while listening to the class.

When the bell rang at the end of get out of class, he had completed the revision of the text of “Joule”, and wrote the comment response document, checked it and sent it directly to Wei Xingsi by email, then got up and went to the cafeteria.

In the afternoon, Xu Qiu started to work on another AM article on “Translucent Devices”.

There are a total of two reviewers here, and the final opinion is a minor change.

Although the opinions of the two reviewers were positive, they raised a lot of questions and it was a little troublesome to deal with.

Two experiments need to be supplemented. One is “Evaluation of Color Rendering Index of Translucent Devices”, which requires the use of an instrument that is not in the group, the colorimeter.

The colorimeter is an instrument used to measure the reflected color and color difference of objects (paper, etc.), measure ISO brightness (blue light whiteness R457), fluorescent whiteness of fluorescent whitening materials, and measure CIE whiteness, etc.

The function is relatively rich, and it is also widely used in papermaking, printing, ceramics, chemical industry, textile printing and dyeing, building materials, food, salt and other industries.

Xu Qiu had used this test in articles about translucent devices in other research groups before, but because there was no instrument in his group, he planned not to measure at that time to see if it could be mixed, but he voted for AM, as long as If there are some loopholes, they will be caught by peers.

The problem of this kind of equipment can only let Wei Xing think about it. If you can find a channel and the test is not troublesome, you can directly test it, but if it is troublesome, you can only find a reason to prevaricate.

Another experiment to be supplemented is relatively simple. The reviewers are more concerned about the visible light transmittance (AVT) value of individual electrodes, individual effective layers, and the overall translucent device.

In fact, Xu Qiu has done this experiment in the simulation laboratory, mainly for his own viewing, which can give him a general impression of the light loss caused by each part of the device, which he has not done in reality.

But the problem is not big, just make up one now.

Xu Qiu directly remotely controlled Mo Wenlin and sent her an instruction to start the experiment. She still has the same article in this article.

In addition, the reviewers have some other questions.

For example, a reviewer was curious about the processing technology of translucent devices and asked about the specific processing technology, because they had tried similar preparation conditions before, but the experiment failed in the end.

In the two afternoon classes, Xu Qiu corrected all the points that could be changed in the review comments of the AM article, and the remaining two experiments needed to be supplemented.

In the evening, Xu Qiu returned to Caiyi and went to 218, intending to discuss with Wei Xingsi about the colorimeter.

He had just walked to door 218 and was about to knock on the door, but Wei Xingsi suddenly opened the door from inside, and both of them were startled by each other.

After two seconds, Wei Xingsi came over and took the initiative to say: “Our “Joule” article has been accepted! I just received an email from the editor.”

“So fast.” Xu Qiu raised his eyebrows at a speed that could be called the speed of light. He sent back comments on the article at noon, and received the article in the evening.

Of course, it is expected that the editors can also choose to accept the article directly according to the opinions of the three reviewers, and not to modify it, and the minor changes can be understood in a matter of seconds.

Xu Qiu couldn’t help thinking of the other “Nature·Energy”, which was the first to be voted out, but now he hasn’t even returned his opinions.