总结一下自己博士期间的投稿经历

七月毕业了，虽然不在职业从事研究方面的工作，但是算是给自己一个总结吧，结合自己投稿过程中的一些审稿结果，谈谈一些文章投稿方面的感受。
由于本人要2010年7月毕业，而在2009年八月之前，可以说与本人博士课题相关的文章几乎没有，有一些别的方面的文章，但和最终的论文工作有些差距，怕最后不能正常按时毕业，所以也是非常着急的投出了多篇文章，其中结果有些好有些坏，大部分第一次都是坏结果。
第一篇文章是2009年8月投往Elsevier的一个期刊，主要描述的是试验结果，这篇文章自己写了，给老板看了一眼，随便改了改就投往杂志了。投完以后发现自己读的时候都觉得惨不忍睹，语言差的不行，心里说，完了，白投了，但是没办法，不想撤稿，怕坏了名声，那就只能等了。终于12月的时候编辑返回了意见，意料之外，审稿人和编辑都给了大修的结论。别的不说，两个审稿人都强烈提出了语言很烂的结论，咱是非常的赞同，不过非常感谢审稿人，能忍受这么烂的语言认真的看了文章，两个审稿人总共提出了四十条左右的文章。最后一一回答了问题，并且花钱到外面修改了语言，返回去以后因为是大修，所以审稿人继续审稿，这次的修改稿给了审稿人非常好的印象，顺利的接受了。总结这篇文章的投稿过程就是，语言很烂的确会造成审稿人据稿的一个重要因素，但是如果你结果足够interesting的话，还是有机会的，但是并不提倡不注重语言，能让写作语言更优美，让人阅读更愉快，为何不可呢
第一篇文章的评语如下：
Reviewer 1：In the paper experimental measurement of heat of absorption with ammonia and ammonia carbonate is presented. The experimental results are discussed and compared to heat of reaction of different possible reactions that can take place when CO2 is absorbed by ammonia system.
The topic of the paper as well as experimental results are of current interest because of the Alstom chilled ammonia process. This data is valuable and would in of interest of many who are trying to conclude if the chilled ammonia process requires less energy than typical amine process (like 30 wt-% MEA).

Reviewer 2: The authors present experimental data on the heat of CO2 absorption with aqueous ammonia and ammonia carbonate solutions. Lower heat consumption for the regeneration of these solvent is assumed in the literature compared to the conventional amine absorption based on “low” heat of reaction of CO2 with aqueous ammonia/ ammonia carbonate solutions, however no experimental data on calorimetric study of CO2 absorption with these solvents were reported until now. Therefore the data presented in the manuscript are very interesting and the article should be published but after a thorough revision.

第二篇文章是9月份投往了Elsevier的Chemical Engineering Science，这篇文章是上述结果的理论计算。两个月后，也就是11月，收到了CES的审稿意见，final decision是reject，虽然结果是坏的，但是好歹CES一般审稿都比较快速，让人拒了也不会耽误很多时间。不过心里还是有点不爽，不爽倒不是对结果，而是其中一个审稿人对我的文章只有三句话，随后会附上。但是第一个人就比较认真，给了意见，我觉得这些意见不是很难回答，CES的审稿意见如下：
Reviewer 1: The heat of solution of CO2 in chemical solvents proposed for CO2 capture is an important unresolved issue that is surrounded by vagueness and even wrong results. This issue is especially a problem for CO2 absorption in aqueous ammonia. Hence this paper is appropriate for publication in Chemical Engineering Science. However, I feel that there are several issues with this paper that should be addressed prior to publication.

Reviewer 2: The paper is poorly written in terms of language and style. The experimental data presented seem to be of poor quality since the two sets included in the paper do not seem to be reproducible. The mathematical modeling is not very clear.
于是根据第一个人的意见作了修改，一共也没花多长时间，然后自己修改了语言，重新投稿到Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research，投过去以后估计编辑认为之前CES审过稿，马上回信让我提供更多的审稿人，可能是需要更多人来审稿，毕竟第一次投稿到CES存在争议。因此我建议，如果你在投稿过程中投往过别的期刊，最好说明一下，当然有的期刊不要求，有的期刊是明确要求你指明是否投往到别的期刊。两个月以后，收到了IECR的审稿意见，minor revision，一共四个审稿人，三个评价很高，一个评价一般。评价较高的人给的意见很具体，认真根据意见一条条修改。评价不高的人意见很general，于是我用了很大的篇幅来说明文章的意义何在，与所已有文献的差别之处。修改稿发回去两天后接受，心里高兴不已。我需要说明一点的是，投往CES时，第二个审稿人说语言很烂，也不给意见，但是这次投到IECR三个人没对语言发表意见，甚至还说well written，所以我认为，虽然大部分审稿人很负责，很认真，但也同样存在人渣，他们的意见可以听，但不必盲从，我投到IECR的文章相对于投到CES的语言基本没改，但是结论差距却非常大，大家自己思量。下面是IECR的审稿意见。
Reviewer 1: Congratulations on the manuscript titled ‘Study on heat of absorption of CO2 in aqua ammonia--comparison between experimental data and model predictions’. You have done an excellent job of addressing some of the fundamental aspects of what may potentially be a very viable solution to CO2 reduction from power station flue gases. The handling of the subject I found to be in most parts clear and detailed enough to provide the reader with a good reference source for future investigations into the application of aqueous ammonia in post combustion CO2 capture.

Reviewer 2: This paper make research on reaction heat during ammonia absorption process. It now is a hot topic and it is a good paper and give much new data. Some suggestions:

Reviewer 3: This paper gives results of a comparison of values for the heat of absorption of CO2 in aqueous ammonia based on measurements and data calculated from the individual reaction contributions. The methodology is similar to the methodology used in a previous paper which presented results from such comparison for aqueous MEA and MDEA solutions (Kim et al. 2009). In the previous paper experimental data and modelling were in adequate agreement. The present paper showed far less agreement between modelling result and experimental data for a 2.5% aqueous ammonia solution. In particularly at increasing temperature the trends in the absorption enthalpy as a function of loading were in strong disagreement. Although reference is made to the PhD thesis of Kim, no effort is made to explain such phenomena in a scientific or technical manner and the statements in the last part of the results and discussion section are too general, without any reference to why the discrepancy is there or what further research would be needed to provide a better understanding. The paper therefore gives an incomplete impression without discussing e.g. possible error sources in the measurements or possible uncertainties in the equilibrium constants used in the analysis. The results and discussion section provides a good review of the results at 35 oC but not at the other temperatures and the authors are invited to provide some further considerations in the results and discussion section.

Reviewer 4: The manuscript compares the heats of absorption of CO2 in aqueous ammonia obtained experimentally with those from modeling predictions. The article is well written but needs the following to be addressed before publication:

第三篇文章是另一个方面的实验结果，11月份投往IECR的，哎，自己做事真的不太认真，投完以后发现文章中很多书写错误，甚至把参考文献的作者名字都写错了，真是不可容忍，这是非常不好的行为，自己都觉得不好意思，觉得可能要被拒了。果然，两个月后又给了审稿意见，reject，只有一个审稿人，稀奇。审稿人很认真，显然发现了我写作中不认真的大问题，提出了很多具体意见，非常感谢这个审稿人，于是一条条改正，投往了Elsevier的另一个期刊。IECR的审稿意见如下
The topic of the manuscript seemed very promising: In the light of CO2 capture from flue gases, several new processes have been presented in the past years, which involve the use of (aqeueous) ammonia as the scrubbing agent. Unfortunately, the manuscript contains too many errors for publication at this point.
修改稿投到新期刊3个月后收到了新期刊的评语，minor revision，问题很少，随便改改就修回了，一个星期后文章被接受，这时是2010年4月份，自己终于在毕业之前把论文都完成了，期间还完成了两篇中文EI，课题工作算是完成了，博士论文也是4月份送审的，7月顺利毕业，现在工作，外地出差中。下面是新期刊的评语。
Reviewer #1: Nice manuscript with some very timely results. I would have liked to see the authors address the reasons for differences in rates between different research groupS, otherwise good work.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes the measuremnt of kinetics for CO2 absorption with aqueous NH3 solution. The machanism of reaction in the system is also explained clearly in the text. The manuscript is suggested for publication with only minor modifications:

总之要想文章获得接受，本身文章要有一定的实质内容，除非你是大牛，展望一下也能发文章。其次是语言很重要，大家尽量在投稿之前修改语言，就跟看历史一样，如果让你看正统教科书的明史，你可能一点都不想看，但是让你看“说说明朝那些事”，可能你就非常的愿意，投稿也是相同的道理。最后就是审稿人的意见大多都是非常正确的，毕竟别人在这个行业是专家，尽可能按照审稿人的意见修改文章，除了那些rp巨差的审稿人外。祝大家好运，文章都能接受。