科研助力| SSCI期刊主编告诉你：这8个理由让我无法拒你的稿！
At Elsevier, it's the responsibility of every editor-in-chief to maintain and develop their journal's profile and reputation. The editor also has the final responsibility for content, ensuring that it meets the aims and scope of the journal and reflects changes in the field by presenting new and emerging research.
In September, Elsevier Connect published an article by Dr. Peter Thrower, Editor-in-Chief of Carbon, called "8 reasons I rejected your article." Because of the article's popularity, we followed up by asking five of our editors a related question: What are the top eight reasons you accept a paper? They all came up with similar reasons, which we present here along with their commentary.
The eight reasons are summed up by Dr. Torsten Pieper, Assistant Editor of the Journal of Family Business Strategy and Assistant Professor at the Cox Family Enterprise Center, Coles College of Business, at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, and his colleague,Dr. Joseph Astrachan, Editor-in-Chief of the journal and Executive Director of the Cox Family Enterprise Center and Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship.
1. It provides insight into an important issue – for example, by explaining a wide variance when numbers are spread out from the mean or expected value, or by shedding light on an unsolved problem that affects a lot of people.
2. The insight is useful to people who make decisions, particularly long-term organizational decisions or, in our particular field, family decisions.
3. The insight is used to develop a framework or theory, either a new theory or advancing an existing one.
4. The insight stimulates new, important questions.
5. The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for example, data collection and analysis of data).
6. The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions.
7. Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields are made and serve to make the article's arguments clear.
8. The article tells a good story, meaning it is well written and easy to understand, the arguments are logical and not internally contradictory.
"Ideally, we would like to see articles perform well on all eight points, and that the author strives for a good balance amongst these criteria," said Dr. Pieper said.
'Show me something new'
"For the subject, it is what I have seen over the years in the journal and what I feel is current, novel and not derivative," he said.
Professor Florence added that he is intrigued by work that is very new and by papers he wishes he thought about doing himself. After the paper has survived reviewer scrutiny, Dr. Florence said, it helps when the reviewers are unanimous in their views. While the reviewing process is very strict, reviewers might be split on their final decision: for example, one might recommend "rejection," another "major revision" and the third "accept as is."
"What we are seeing in Life Sciences, as well as other journals, is the explosive growth of new technology which has broad implications on these studies," he said.
Do your own work
While a paper might "tick all the boxes," the question on everyone's mind is, "Is it original?" With the increasing use of technology — and several software programs now available to detect plagiarism, such asCrossCheck — the paper's originality can be easily determined and detected before the referees see it. At Elsevier, many papers undergo this scrutiny.
While plagiarism is not a crime per se, it is considered a moral offense and can involve liability for copyright infringement.
"There should be no hints of plagiarism or fabrication in the paper," said Dr. Francesco Visioli, Editor-in-Chief of Pharmacological Research and the recently launched journalPharmaNutrition. Also, he added, "data in the figures should match those reported in the results, and the results are not in contradiction with each other."
Use varied research methods
Dr. Pieper, who moved from Germany to the US about five years ago, looks at the type of research submitted from different parts of the world. "Moving from Europe to the US, I see there is a marked difference between the output of US researchers compared to their European counterparts in qualitative as opposed to quantitative research for my family of journals," he said, pointing out that well over 75 percent of submissions coming from the US use quantitative methods compared to about 50 percent from Europe.
"This clearly demonstrates to me that European researchers are more embracing of alternative methods to explore a phenomenon of interest," he said. "Going forward, I would like to see a more even balance in the papers submitted from the US."
Resources for authors
Before submitting a paper, authors should study the journal's aims and scope and consult with the Guide for Authors.
For more advice, check out the step-by-step guide How to publish in an Elsevier Journal and the Publishing Connect Author Training Webcasts.
For information on the Elsevier's online submission system, visit the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) customer support site at support.elsevier.com.
学习是一种美德
分享是一种快乐
欢迎关注！
上海语言学通讯
学界新闻|推荐阅读
【征稿出书】语言学专著出版征集令（上海交大出版社）
学界新闻|《外语教学》2016年第4期目录
【学界新闻】《外语教学》 2016年第3期目录
【学界新闻】2015年《外语教学》总目录及载文分析
【学界新闻】《西安外国语大学学报》2015年总目录
【学界新闻】北大中文核心外语类学术期刊排名
【学界新闻】2016年国家社科公布名单（语言学+文学+翻译）
2016年国家社科青年项目（语言学+文学）
【学界新闻】2016年国家社科西部项目（语言文学相关课题整理）
【学界新闻】2016年教育部人文项目立项课题（语言学）
【学界新闻】2016年教育部人文立项课题（文学研究）
【学界新闻】2016年度教育部人文社会科学研究西部和边疆地区项目（语言文学项目）
读书小札|推荐阅读
【读书小札】 实证类研究语步设计与相关分析SPSS统计软件操作视频
【读书小札】融入大生态的文体学超学科研究 ——张德禄教授《英语文体学重点问题研究》
【读书小札】徐盛桓教授：身体-情感语言表达研究
【读书小札】《语篇研究跨越小句的意义》之“语篇格律”
【读书小札】语义波理论及其在教师课堂话语分析和建构中的作用
【读书小札】翻译史研究的方法论典范：读廖七一《严复翻译批评的再思考》
【读书小札】基于语料库的莎士比亚剧汉译本中“使”字句应用的研究
【读书小札】党争胜教授谈“民族文化词的翻译问题探微”
【读书小札】追古溯今、放眼世界：王宁教授谈全球化时代的翻译及翻译研究
【读书小札】学术英语之语法选择
【读书小札】Metaphor in Culture：LIFE IS A SHOW in Chinese
【读书小札】语言哲学三问
【读书小札】后现代翻译理论中的悖论与阐释
读书小札| 从“血缘伦理”到“契约伦理”：司各特小说《中洛辛郡的心脏》中的伦理观解读
读书小札|张辉、邸伟超 Making Intelligence More Transparent