After you have followed all the advices on how to write a paper, had it submitted to a journal of your choice, here are things you should do:
1. If the editor and the journal are established and responsible, you should receive an acknowledgement within two weeks. Otherwise, you should post an inquiry. Manuscripts do get lost at times.
2. Once receipt is acknowledged you should wait patiently for a review decision. I personally suggest that if you have not heard from the journal in four months time, then you should politely write to the editor to inquire about progress on the review. Since occasionally there are irresponsible editors and reviewers. Once they agreed to process your paper, they owe you some timely response. But be polite and professional in your dealings. Remember reviewing a manuscript is a volunteer activity. As authors, “demanding” actions will get you nowhere.
3. Finally the reply came back from the editor. If the editor accepted the paper without modification or with request for minor revisions only, congratulations!
4. More likely than not, the paper is not accepted as is and the editor wants major revisions and re-review; or worse, the paper is rejected. In either case, you have some decisions to make. Here I offer my own experience on what to do next.
5. If the paper is rejected outright, then you need to decide if the decision is justified. Most of the time, this is done wit
h good reason including value judgment. The author should accept and learn from the experience. On the rare occasion when you think a real injustice has been committed and you want to protest, you better do it with very strong evidence and well supported reasons. Furthermore, if you balance your action against the cost of protest often times you will realize it is not worth the trouble. For almost everyone, you will only have truly significant discovery a couple of times in your entire life. No one said the world is fair and most of the time, it is not worthwhile to get angry with the “small stuff”.
6. Most reviewers are fair and have constructive things to say which you should consider carefully when attempting to revise your paper. Try not to get annoyed by the sometimes sarcastic remarks of the reviewer. Often time it is their chance to payback when they were on the receiving end as authors. Thus, don’t be sarcastic and mean in responding to their reviews. Getting angry will only hurt your cause. As the saying goes “don’t get mad, get even by having your paper accepted”
7. When responding to a reviewer with your revised manuscript and/or specific replies, remember that months probably has gone past sincethe reviewer read your paper and wrote his/her review. Make the job easy and pleasant for him. First write a general covering letter to each reviewer thanking him or his effort and comments. Then promise that you have considered each of his comments and what you have done and responded to each. Finally reproduce his review and give your reply side by side for each remark. Remember, by this time most reviewer probably has forgotten what he said about your paper. You need to make things easy and to remind him. Also showing you took his comments seriously will impress him with your effort and sincerity.
8. If you did #6 and #7 above well, you need not agree with everything the reviewer said. But if you must disagree, do it professionally and with no rancor. Above all, explain why you cannot do what he suggests with a good reason. Fair referees and editors will respect you.
9. Above all, remember your task is to win over the reviewer and not to fight with him. The playing field between a reviewer and an author is NOT level. You can seldom win a fight with an editor or reviewer.
10. Finally, I fully realize under current practice in China, quantity of publication is all important. This together with the relative lack of punishment have led to all kinds of incentives for aberrant and unethical behavior. However, if China is going to take her rightful place among nations, she will eventually have to confirm to established custom and traditions of academia. The emphasis on quantity will soon pass and you will regret if you give in to such incentives in the short term.
2， 确认稿件收到后，你应该耐心地等待评审决定。我个人建议，如果四个月内还没有收到消息的话，你应该给编辑写信，礼貌地询问评审的进展。因为有时有的编辑和 评审人确实不负责任。一旦他们答应处理你的论文，他们就应该给予你及时的答复。不过，你一定要有礼貌，表现出应有的专业精神，要记住，论文评审是一种志愿 行为。作为作者，一味苛求别人对你自己一点好处也没有。
5， 如果文章直接被拒了，那么你需要考虑这一判决是否正当。大多数时候，期刊拒绝文章都有很充足的理由，包括对你的文章的价值的判断。这个时候作者应该接受这 一结果，并从中吸取经验教训。在极少的情况下，如果你认为结果确实不公平，想要提出抗议，那么你的证据务必非常充足，理由非常充分。此外，很多时候如果你 权衡一下抗议行为所要付出的代价，你会发现其实惹这些麻烦并不划算。我们几乎每个人一生可能只会做出那么一两个真正重要的发现。没人说世界绝对公平，大多 数时候并不值得为这种“小事”生气。
6，大多数评审人都是公平的而且会给出建设性的意见，当你修改文章时应该仔细地考虑这些意见。尽量 不要因为某个评审人讽刺挖苦你就生气懊恼，轮到他们自己投稿时，便是他们“还债”的时候了。因此，回应这些评论时别冷嘲热讽，小里小气的。恼怒只会伤害你 自己的事业，有句话说得好：“别生气，想办法让论文被接收才叫打了个平手。”
7，当你写回信的时候，附上修改稿和/或者对评审意见的逐 条回复，要记住，现在距离他/她上次审阅你的文章和写下评论可能已经过去几个月了。所以，要尽量使他觉得简单轻松。首先，给评审人每人写一封通用的封面 信，感谢他们的工作和评论。接下来向他/她保证你已经考虑了每一条意见，并罗列出你的补充工作，逐条答复评审意见。最后逐条复制他们的评论并同时并排给出 你的答复，要记住，这个时候大多数评审人可能已经忘记了他们以前是怎么评价你的文章的了。你需要把事情弄得简单些，给他们一些提醒。此外，这样做表示你认 真考虑了他们的评论，你的努力和诚恳会给他们留下深刻的印象的。
10， 最后，我完全明白，在目前的中国，论文发表数量是最重要的。这一点，加上惩罚措施相对缺失，触发了各种各样的异常行为和学术不端行为。然而，如果中国打算 取得她应有的国际地位，早晚有一天必须遵守国际学术惯例和学术传统。对量的强调很快就会过去，如果你屈服于眼前的这些短期利益的刺激的话，将来会后悔不迭 的。（科学网 梅进译 何姣校）