Chapter 140: Reviewer

　　 "Xu Qiu, JMCA's review email, I have forwarded it, please check it." Chen Wanqing said:
　　 "The review is actually quite simple. Haven't you received three comments on your article before? Just comment on a similar writing."
　　 Xu Qiu nodded and opened the computer mailbox.
　　 The latest email is from Chen Wanqing.
　　 The email has been forwarded twice, and the subject has changed to "Fw:Fw:……"
　　 In most mail systems, forwarding an email will add a "Fw:" or "Fwd:" prefix to the subject;
　　 And reply to an email will add the prefix "RE:", if there are too many forwarding or replying times, there will be a long string in front.
　　 For this, Teacher Wei has obsessive-compulsive disorder. As long as there are more than two colons in front of him, he will delete until there is only one.
　　 Xu Qiu clicked to open the email, there was no content in it, only an attached file.
　　 is in PDF format, and the file name is TA-ART-11-20xx-01xxxx.
　　 After downloading the PDF file, I created a new WORD document, copied the file name of the PDF, and added a "_comments" suffix at the end, and then opened the two files at the same time.
　　……
　　 Start reviewing.
　　 I used to see other people's comments for him before submitting articles. This time it was finally his turn to review others.
　　 JMCA is a journal under RSC. Although it is in the second district, the grade is still higher than the second district, with an impact factor of about 10.
　　 Chen Wanqing's first article was about JMCA, but was rejected by the second. Later, he switched to ACSAMI and was rejected.
　　 But there was a problem with the opinion of a reviewer. After Mr. Wei complained, it was miraculously accepted.
　　 Xu Qiu first looked through the PDF file from beginning to end, which contained 28 pages.
　　 The first page is the basic information of the submitted manuscript, including:
　　 Journal name, JMCA;
　　 Submission ID, which is the file name of the PDF file;
　　 The article type is Paper, similar to Article. Such articles are novel in general, with more content and longer length;
　　 The submission date is just a few days ago;
　　 The list of authors, there are nine authors in total, each of whom has marked the name of a specific school, department or research unit.
　　 Both the first and nine works are from the University of Science and Technology of China, and it is basically certain that they are articles contributed by domestic colleagues.
　　 The second page is JMCA's review requirements.
　　 First, I talked about how powerful the JMCA journal is. It requires articles to be very innovative and high-quality before they can be published;
　　 Then they said that their rejection rate is about 80%, and the review time is 10 days. If there are special circumstances, you can extend the time to talk to the editor.
After 　　, I ran an advertisement. Click the link below "", and you can get a 25% discount on their paper periodicals.
　　 Finally, the signature and contact information of the editor and chief editor.
　　 a whole page, mostly nonsense.
　　 But Xu Qiu saw it for the first time, and was a little curious, so he read it carefully.
　　Successfully wasted five minutes.
　　 Turn to the third page, it is CoverLetter.
　　 Xu Qiu asked Chen Wanqing curiously:
　　 "Isn't it said that this is only the editor can see it, and the reviewer can also see it."
　　 She tilted her head and said:
　　 "Maybe JMCA is a special case. I review Weily's journals and there is no such situation."
　　 Let's go, this is not a big problem, Xu Qiu no longer struggles.
The content after 　　 is more than twenty pages of text and supporting information, displayed in a single column, without typesetting.
　　 is similar to the draft of his own writing, nothing special.
　　 After reading the title and abstract, Xu Qiu initially judged that the main novelty of this article was the synthesis of a new type of small molecule donor material.
　　 However, it is worth noting that the donor materials they make are small molecules, rather than common polymer materials.
　　That is to say, their system is an all-small molecule organic solar cell, because the acceptor material fullerene derivative PCBM is also a small molecule.
　　 All small molecule systems, which can be regarded as a branch in the field of organic photovoltaics, are relatively unpopular, and there are not many people studying them.
　　The main reason is that the performance of the device cannot be improved, and it is not as high as the system based on polymer donors.
　　 As expected, Xu Qiu glanced at their efficiency, which was only 6.8%.
　　 But for scientific research, no matter how unpopular areas are, there are always people doing it.
　　……
　　 The review of the manuscript is slightly different from the literature.
　　 If you usually read the literature, you can read hundreds of lines at a glance, and only select the useful places to read, but the review of the manuscript is to read the full text carefully, after all, you have to make comments.
　　 Xu Qiu spent about an hour reading the article twice.
　　 The first time he read it quickly, he didn't see anything wrong, so he read it again.
　　 The overall feeling is that the article is fairly smooth. It should not be a newly handwritten article, or the article has been carefully revised by a veteran. Xu Qiu only found a few writing errors.
　　 Moreover, the characterization and testing are all complete, and each picture is processed well.
　　 Then, here comes the problem.
　　 We must first set the general tone before writing specific review comments.
　　 Is it giving a negative opinion or a positive opinion?
　　Specifically, is it recommended to reject, modify, or accept directly?
　　 There is no major problem with the expression of this article, so it is necessary to judge the efficiency of this new material of 6.8%, and what level it is in the field of small-molecule organic photovoltaics.
　　All small molecules are different from what Xu Qiu is doing now, but Teacher Wei will still show him these documents, because it is a little bit sideways after all.
　　 There are not many articles published in this field, he has only seen a few recently.
　　 Although it was only a rough scan and I didn't read the content carefully, there are still some impressions in my mind about important information like efficiency.
　　 The current highest efficiency in this field is probably ~EbookFREE.me~ He remembers that the article with the highest efficiency was posted on AM.
　　 From this point of view, with an efficiency of 6.8%, they want to send a JMCA, which is reasonable.
　　 Now, the big tone has been set-positive opinions.
　　 So, do you suggest changes or accept directly?
　　 Xu Qiu thought for a while, after all, it was the first time to review the manuscript, so it was a bit perfunctory to let them pass the manuscript directly?
　　 Still pick something wrong and let them correct it.
　　 imitating the review comments received before, he changed the content in the abstract:
　　"The authors and others have developed a new type of small molecule donor material. This material..., solar cell devices prepared based on this material have a maximum efficiency of 6.8%.
　　 If the contributor considers the following suggestions, I recommend this article to be published in this journal:
　　 Page 14, line 28, there is a writing error, should be changed to xxx. "
　　 There is only one suggestion, which seems a bit too thin, so let’s look for more problems.
　　 After half an hour, he finally added three more sentences:
　　"The light absorption spectrum, the ordinate is not the light absorption coefficient, it is recommended to normalize.
　　 The EQE external quantum efficiency map lacks relevant description, and it is recommended to supplement it.
　　 On the GIWAXS picture, the font of the horizontal and vertical coordinates is too small to see clearly. It is recommended to enlarge it. "
　　 These three points were only thought by Xu Qiu after racking his brains. It felt like a bit of a bone in an egg.
　　 He couldn't help wondering, could he deliberately leave some small loopholes when writing the article and leave it to the reviewers to single out?
　　 However, this is a bit deadly.
　　 If a reviewer sees it and feels that the article is full of loopholes and rejects the manuscript directly, it will be fun.