|
在中科院分區(qū)里，AJP只是個三區(qū)雜志。但是在博主心目中，它的地位好比五岳之外的黃山。在AJP 發(fā)表文章是我十多年的夢想。 不幸的是，之前投AJP的文章 Fermi's golden rule: its derivation and breakdown by an ideal model，又被拒（審稿77天）。 下面是審稿意見和編輯意見。三個審稿人，一正，一負，一中。編輯自己讀了下稿子，拒稿。跟上次投稿的情況比較類似。AJP不接受作者回信反駁，拒了就拒了。 個人反對那個“反對”的審稿的諸多意見。首先，這個模型不是“我”的模型，是stey和gibberd的模型。其次，schiff的量子力學我當然看過，但是他對費米黃金規(guī)則的處理也沒比別人強多少。再次，我文章的要點并非僅僅是指出費米黃金規(guī)則的線性行為不能持續(xù)，這點很多教程都已經(jīng)指出了。其他審稿人能夠看到，為什么他就看不到。 第三個審稿人認為，文章不夠pedagogical，這個我贊同。這也是劉全慧老師之前的意見。 很明顯，三個審稿人都來自英語國家，英語很地道。 再次驗證一個教訓：to be pedagogical is too difficult！
Dear Prof. Jiang Min Zhang, Attached you will find copies of the reviewers' reports on your manuscript "Fermi's golden rule: its derivation and breakdown by an ideal model," our manuscript #28709. As you can see, the reviews are quite mixed: one in favor of publication, one against, and one "ambivalent". Faced with this lack of consensus, I have read the manuscript myself and I regret to conclude that although it may be suitable for publication elsewhere, it is too narrowly technical and cumbersome to be useful to most AJP readers. AJP receives many submissions, almost all of which have some value. However, we can only accept a limited number of manuscripts and thus manuscripts must receive enthusiastic support from reviewers for further consideration. I am writing to inform you, therefore, that we will not pursue publication of this manuscript.Thank you for your interest in the American Journal of Physics. Sincerely, Daniel V. Schroeder ====================================================================
(張江敏)
美國物理雜志（AJP）的標準有多高？ | 
收藏
分享
支持
反對
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
千斤頂
照妖鏡
