就像我们的副主编Iain Taylor说的那样，编辑人员不能像投票那样，根据推荐Accept 或者 Reject的审稿人的个数来决定一篇文章应该接收还是拒稿。责任编辑要根据文章的内容，通盘考虑审稿人提出的意见是否得当，是否可行，还要考虑此类文章是否发表得太多或者极少发表, 有时还得考虑研究区域的特殊性， 综合考虑后再作出拒稿或者修改的意见。但是在实际情况下，由于处理的稿件较多，责编往往没有足够的时间和精力去认真通读全文，并根据审稿人的意见逐条进行比对。由此作出的决定意见难免会出现偏差。

 

也有很多情况下，作者对自己的研究过于自信，对审稿人提出的质疑反应过激, 有的甚至质疑审稿人是因为知晓作者是谁而故意作出负面的评价等等。不论是什么情况，当作者对编辑部作出的决定不服，对审稿意见提出质疑时，编辑部应该怎么办？我就最近遇到的几个案例作一说明：

 

1. 一位印度作者来信质疑审稿人为熟悉的同行故意作出负面评价。我在稿件系统中查看了审稿人的来源, 发现本文的三位审稿人中，一位推荐大改（来自中国）， 两位推荐拒稿，分别来自荷兰和英国，不存在作者所说的熟人暗算他的情况。这两位审稿人的评价虽然都指向一些文章的共同问题，但各有侧重点，而且审稿意见都非常详细。我向作者说明了审稿人的情况,表明并无他所怀疑的是熟悉的人审稿的情况。作者最终接受了这个决定结果。

 

2. 一篇非洲作者的关于土地利用和土壤侵蚀的文章经过4位审稿人审稿，一位给出小修的意见，三位推荐退稿，主要认为作者利用现存的而且较老的土壤侵蚀模型模拟该流域的土壤侵蚀，没有多少创新性。于是责编推荐退稿。作者收到退稿信后，发来这样一封信：I appreciate the priceless effort that you made.I honestly thank you to what you have made though the sudden shift and status quo you made to my e-mails reminded me as you have been wrongly guided by the comments of unscientific reviews who tried to give  irrational comments guessing the authors from the the name of the study area. Believe me you have sent to stupid people who are little minded. You felt the comments are scientific and rational since you  assume these reviewers as top expertise. I am sorry to see  expertises who can say that the K, C and P values are not properly manipulated. The  articles are written by well experienced and top class professionals.  Some says literatures are old. If so, they can comment to update the literatures and guide the right path and papers that we have to read if they think more has to be done. As long as they are important, do you mean that all important fundamental information and ideas of ancient philosophers/literatures have to be denied and dumped unless the reality and fact is changed. It would be nice  if they suggest the ways, the gaps and the means to bring the article to their expected level if they are  knowledgeable/experts  on the topic. I am sorry how politics  of evil minded people disrupt the progress of science and the best efforts of hard working people.

 

Let I tell you the common fact and trait of evil minded reviewers; they adversely comment on space sciences with they have no capacity. They seems as knowledgeable in the topic, English language, model, recent literature, the fact of the area studied, etc. I understand to type of expertises you have sent the paper from the styles of their comment.  My worry is not the rejection of the paper, my worry is the waste of the time and the politics of wrong minded reviewers who couldn't say no to review article which does not fit their expertise. I am sorry to the time that I and you have killed without getting any fruitful comment.

Had I been in the position to get fruitful comment that can contribute to improve  the standard of the paper, their effort would  have been appreciated. Unfortunately, you found pseudo expertise who seem expertise beyond their capacity.

 

鉴于作者的强烈反应，我请责编（也是本领域的专家)再对照文章和审稿人的意见审查，同时考虑文章的研究区域的特殊性（研究区域在非洲），即使是采用老方法，从填补空白的角度看是否有一定的意义或者否有改好的可能性。

 

3. 一篇文章一审时两位审稿人匀推荐大改，二审时由于一审邀请的一位审稿人不愿意再审，因此，新增了一位另外的审稿人。这位审稿人提出了非常详细的审稿意见，同时，指出了论文研究的诸多不足，直接建议拒稿。考虑到作者已经过了一轮大改，于是请作者根据二审审稿人的意见进行再次修改。作者收到编辑部的修改要求后来信说，虽然二审的这位审稿人提的意见很好，但是过于吹毛求疵，表示不愿意再作大的修改。鉴于此，我将一审和二审意见以及修改稿发给两位编委，请他们提出具体的建议。

 

本人作为一位编辑，也当过作者，对做实验写论文的辛苦深有体会，科学研究没有十全十美，不同期刊的要求和选择标准也会各不相同，但应本着对作者负责、对读者负责的态度，正面作者的质疑和不满，做好解释说明，请行业的权威专家再次把关，请多名本学科的编委共同讨论等等多种形式，力争解决问题，并尽可能让作者心服。