You spend months if not years carefully crafting your research into a paper for submission to a peer reviewed journal. You wait on tenterhooks for anywhere between two months to 18 months (my min and max range to date) to hear from what you presume will be experts in your field (not always unfortunately). Some of you fear that your work is not good enough and reviewers will highlight fatal flaws. Others at the back of their minds will think or at least hope that reviewers will recognise just how brilliant they are. The notification comes in and your heart sinks. The editor politely declines the opportunity to publish your work.
您需要花费数月(甚至数年)的时间仔细地将您的研究成果撰写成论文，然后提交给同行审阅的期刊。 您需要等待两个月到18个月(到目前为止，我的最小和最大范围)之间的拉幅拉幅，才能听到您所假定的会成为您所在领域的专家(并不总是很不幸)。 你们中有些人担心自己的工作不够出色，而审阅者会强调致命的缺陷。 其他在他们心中落后的人会认为或至少希望审稿人能够意识到他们的才华。 通知进入，您的心脏沉没。 编辑者礼貌地拒绝发布作品的机会。
处理拒绝—接下来是什么？ (Dealing with rejection — what next?)
One of the most common questions that I am asked particularly by graduate students is after receiving a rejection with detailed comments what is the next step? The first thing to note is that rejection is incredibly common and so don’t unduly worry. I still recall the first reviewer’s comments I ever received as a PhD student. I was taken aback by the tone by one reviewer in particular. They seemed to miss the point of the paper and were extremely rude and condescending.
特别是研究生向我提出的最常见问题之一是，在收到拒绝并给出详细评论后，下一步是什么？ 首先要注意的是，拒绝是非常普遍的事情，因此不要过分担心。 我仍然记得我读博士时收到的第一位审稿人的评论。 特别是一位评论员对我的语气感到惊讶。 他们似乎错过了论文的重点，非常无礼和屈尊。
At that time I did not realise just how variable comments from reviewers and editors would turn out to be. The review process can be very random and difficult to get consistency across multiple reviewers and such consistency is generally needed if an editor is to allow you to proceed on to the next stage. Indeed in the economics field it is often best to assume your paper will be rejected especially if you are an early career researcher. This does not mean that you should not expect to get your paper published, rather it just may take on average multiple attempts and the number of attempts will depend on how good the paper is, how ambitious you are in terms of journal selection and on how lucky you are. Persistence here is really key.
那时我还没有意识到评论者和编辑的可变评论会变成什么样。 审阅过程可能是非常随机的，很难在多个审阅者之间实现一致性，并且如果编辑器允许您进入下一阶段，则通常需要这种一致性。 确实，在经济学领域，通常最好假设您的论文将被拒绝，尤其是如果您是早期职业研究人员。 这并不意味着您不应该期望发表论文，而是平均可能要进行多次尝试，而尝试的次数将取决于论文的质量，您在期刊选择方面的野心以及如何真幸运 。 坚持不懈确实是关键 。
在重新提交另一种期刊之前，我应该对论文进行什么更改？ (What if any changes should I make to my paper before resubmitting to another journal?)
I have received wonderfully insightful comments from reviewers who have rejected my papers but I also have received very unhelpful ones which seem largely reflective of their own subjective biases and prejudices as opposed to any careful assessment of the merits or otherwise of the specific paper. As a graduate student it can be particularly difficult to figure out which is which. I have noticed some people completely ignore reviewer comments and simply resubmit elsewhere straight away whereas others may spend months looking to address as many comments as humanly possible before resubmitting.
我收到了拒绝我的论文的审稿人的精辟见解 ，但我也收到了很多无益的评论，这些评论似乎在很大程度上反映出他们自己的主观偏见和偏见 ，而不是对优点或其他方面进行仔细的评估。 作为一名研究生，要弄清哪个是特别困难的。 我注意到有些人完全忽略了审稿人的评论，只是立即在其他地方重新提交，而另一些人可能要花几个月的时间来尝试在重新提交之前尽可能多地处理人为评论。
In deciding what to do it might be helpful to divide comments from reviewers into three broad categories and the extent to which this classification applies to any particular paper will of course vary greatly.
在决定该怎么做时，将审阅者的评论分为三大类可能会有所帮助，并且此分类适用于任何特定论文的程度当然会有很大差异。
1.非常有帮助 (1. Extremely helpful)
This could take the form of being pointed towards new related literature that you were unaware of. A new potential channel that can help explain the main result. A type of robustness or sensitivity check that can add further weight to the findings. An important methodological detail omitted or not presented very clearly. Inconsistency in the presentation of a key argument. A key policy implication that had not been thought of. Generally reviewers who go to the trouble of providing helpful comments such as these also take care to present them in an accommodating tone. That being said, even if the tone seems harsh try and look beyond this.
这可以采取指向您不了解的新相关文献的形式。 一个新的潜在渠道可以帮助解释主要结果。 一种健壮性或敏感性检查，可以进一步增加发现的分量。 一个重要的方法学细节被忽略或没有很清楚地呈现。 关键论点的表达不一致。 尚未想到的关键政策含义。 通常，难以提供诸如此类的有用评论的审稿人还应注意以适当的语调发表评论。 话虽如此，即使语气似乎很刺耳，也请尝试并超越此范围。
2.很少或没有用 (2. Little or no use)
These miss the point of the paper entirely. Hard to characterise succinctly but could take the form of hostile comments towards the field of research as a whole (e.g. economics of happiness) or methods (e.g. I don’t like surveys) as opposed to an evaluation of the merits of otherwise of the specific paper. Comments could also reflect the fact that the reviewer in question has a competing paper or simply that this paper contradicts their previous work which in turn could contaminate (often unconsciously) the fairness of the review. Condescending or juvenile comments — this often takes the form of a criticism of the methodological approach (e.g. using fixed effects) while misunderstanding what it actually involves and often using a superior tone in an attempt to try and convince the editor of how knowledgeable they are. More broadly, trying to impress the editor with overly convoluted criticisms and the ‘gotcha’ mentality is also unfortunately common.
这些完全错过了论文的重点。 很难简明扼要地刻画，但可以采取对整个研究领域(例如幸福经济学)或方法(例如我不喜欢调查)的敌对评论，而不是对其他方面的优劣进行评估纸。 评论还可能反映出这样一个事实，即所涉及的审稿人有一篇相互竞争的论文，或者仅仅是该论文与他们以前的工作相矛盾，从而反过来可能会污染(通常是无意识地)审稿的公正性。 屈从于屈从或幼稚的评论—通常是对方法论方法的批评形式(例如使用固定效应)，同时误解了它实际上涉及的内容，并常常以一种较高的语调试图使编辑者相信它们的知识水平。 更广泛地说，不幸的是，试图以过分复杂的批评和“陷阱”的心态来打动编辑。
3.介于两者之间 (3. Something in between)
I find these comments relate to writing style and structure. For example, the paper would be greatly improved by expanding the background sections so that you can more carefully expound on the rich literature relating to whatever it may be. Condense the conclusion. Expand the conclusion. You explain X in too much detail. You explain Y in too little detail etc. etc.
我发现这些评论与写作风格和结构有关。 例如，可以通过扩展背景部分来极大地改善本文，以便您可以更仔细地阐述与之相关的丰富文献。 总结结论。 扩展结论。 您对X的解释太多了。 您对Y的解释太少了，等等。
My advice is always to generally try and deal with the comments under 1 above before resubmitting. The variance amongst reviewers and editors is of course very very high (more on this in a future post), but even when it is unlikely that these same comments will emerge when dealing with new reviewers, your paper will be strengthened by considering those points. This in turn will likely increase the degree to which reviewers will ‘like’ your paper in future. It is also quite possible that the same reviewer is asked to review your paper again and they will likely appreciate any changes you made in response to their comments or be annoyed if you haven’t taken their comments on board. I would suggest safely ignoring comments in the second category. They won’t improve the paper which should be your main concern. It is true that you may get the same reviewer again but it is likely no matter what you do the reviewer will again find some ‘fatal flaw’ and suggest rejection.
我的建议是，在重新提交之前，通常应尝试处理上述1下的评论。 审稿人和编辑之间的差异当然非常大(以后的文章中会对此进行更多讨论)，但是即使在与新审稿人打交道时不太可能出现这些相同的评论，通过考虑这些要点也可以加强您的论文。 反过来，这可能会增加审稿人将来对您的论文“喜欢”的程度 。 也很可能会要求同一位审稿人再次审阅您的论文，他们很可能会感谢您为回应他们的评论所做的任何更改，或者如果您没有采纳他们的评论，则会感到恼火。 我建议您安全地忽略第二类中的评论。 他们不会改善您应该主要关注的纸张。 的确，您可能会再次得到同一位审稿人，但是无论您做什么，审稿人都可能会再次发现“致命缺陷”并建议拒绝。
Whether to address any comments in the last category is a balancing act. Anything you can do to improve the clarity of the paper will improve your chances but there are diminishing returns. You have to be conscious of the time involved particularly if you also have new research opportunities to pursue. It is also worth bearing in mind that if, for instance, a reviewer makes a compelling case for a more detailed exposition, another reviewer may feel that there is too much detail obscuring your key contribution. As such if you are not careful you may end up chasing your tail somewhat.
是否处理最后一个类别中的任何评论是一种平衡行为。 您可以采取任何措施来提高纸张的清晰度，但都会增加机会，但是收益却在减少 。 您必须意识到所涉及的时间，尤其是如果您还拥有新的研究机会。 还应牢记，例如，如果审稿人提出令人信服的理由进行更详细的论述，那么另一名审稿人可能会认为太多的细节遮掩了您的主要论文。 因此，如果您不小心，可能最终会追逐自己的尾巴 。
While comments from reviewers pertaining to style and structure may be helpful, I find the passage of time is often more effective here than any reviewer comments. When I look at a paper again after receiving a rejection I almost always find all sorts of ways in which I can make my writing clearer. Indeed it is not uncommon for me to completely revamp a paper six months later after receiving a rejection even if I didn’t find the comments by reviewers particularly enlightening. This probably reflects the fact that clarity of writing continuously improves, my own knowledge of the subject matter in question has likely also improved in the intervening period and nothing beats looking at something with fresh eyes even if they are your own.
尽管审稿人对样式和结构的评论可能会有所帮助，但我发现在这里流逝的时间通常比审稿人的评论更有效 。 遭到拒绝后，当我再次查看论文时，几乎总是会找到各种方式使我的写作更清晰。 的确，即使我没有发现审稿人的评论特别有启发性，六个月后我完全修改论文在收到拒绝后也并不罕见。 这可能反映出这样一个事实，即写作的清晰度不断提高，在此期间，我自己对所涉主题的了解也可能有所提高， 即使是属于您自己的事物，也无法以新鲜的眼光看待事物 。
翻译自: https://towardsdatascience.com/dealing-with-rejection-by-reviewers-after-submitting-a-research-paper-9cddc932f2af