PMG | Stage Gate Review - Description
Stage Gate Review
Toggle All
Stage Gates are phase-driven go/no-go decision points where EPLC activities are reviewed to ensure that appropriate OMB and HHS requirements are observed. A system cannot proceed without a “go” decision by the appropriate senior manager for the specific control gate.
Stage Gate Reviews include:
Stage Gate Reviews are conducted by the IT governance organization (in conjunction with investment stakeholders) to ensure that projects, as they move through their life cycles, are fully complying with relevant IT project management requirements. The reviews also review project performance against baselines and require corrective action plans or rebaselining as appropriate to the situation.
Most importantly, Stage Gate Reviews determine that the project is ready to advance to the next Phase.
Stage Gate Reviews are also the most appropriate time for the IT governance organization, in consultation with affected Business Owners, to change project cost, schedule or performance baselines in response to changing HHS mission
priorities.
The Initiation Stage Gate Review considers whether the Business Needs Statement justifies proceeding to the Concept Phase for a full Business Case and preliminary Project Management Plan.
The Project Selection Review (PSR) is a formal inspection of a proposed IT project by the IT governance organization to determine if it is a sound, viable, and worthy of funding, support and inclusion in the organization's IT Investment Portfolio.
This Stage Gate Review is one of the four that cannot be delegated by the IT governance organization.
The Project Baseline Review (PBR) is a formal inspection of the entire project and performance measurement baseline initially developed for the IT project. This review is one of the four Stage Gate Reviews that cannot be delegated by the IT governance organization. The PBR is conducted to obtain management approval that the scope, cost and schedule that have been established for the project are adequately documented and that the project management strategy is appropriate for moving the project forward in the life cycle. Upon successful completion of this review, the Project Management Plan is officially baselined.
The PBR includes review of the budget, risk, and user requirements for the investment.
Emphasis should be on the total cost of ownership and not just development or acquisition costs.
The Requirements Analysis Stage Gate Review considers whether the project should proceed to the Design Phase.
The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) is a formal inspection of the high-level architectural design of an automated system, its software and external interfaces, which is conducted to achieve agreement and confidence that the design satisfies the functional and non-functional requirements and is in conformance with the enterprise architecture. Overall project status, proposed technical solutions, evolving software products, associated documentation, and capacity estimates are reviewed to determine completeness and consistency with design standards, to raise and resolve any technical and/or project-related issues, and to identify and mitigate project, technical, security, and/or business risks affecting continued detailed design and subsequent development, testing, implementation, and operations & maintenance activities.
This review is one of the four Stage Gate Reviews that cannot be delegated by the IT governance organization.
The Development Stage Gate Review evaluates whether the project should proceed to the Test Phase.
The Test Stage Gate Review evaluates whether the project should proceed to the Implementation Phase.
The Operational Readiness Review (ORR) is a formal inspection conducted to determine if the final IT solution or automated system/application that has been developed or acquired, tested, and implemented is ready for release into the production environment for sustained operations and maintenance support.
The IT governance organization cannot delegate this review.
The Operations & Maintenance Stage Gate Review evaluates whether the project should proceed to the Disposition Phase.
A Disposition Review is conducted to ensure that a system/application or other IT situation has been completely and appropriately disposed, thereby ending the lifecycle of the IT project.
This phase-end review shall be conducted again within six months after retirement of the system.
The Disposition Review Report also documents the lessons learned from the shutdown and archiving of the terminated system.
Coming Soon
Coming Soon浅谈IT项目管理--Phase和Gate&Review
& &通过PMP相关学习及项目管理的经验，从Gate
View的角度浅谈下IT项目管理的过程。
&一般，IT项目主要的类型可以分：对内（非IT产业的IT项目）、对外（顾问公司标得相关项目）或研发性项目（IT行业研发新产品）。其中，对内和对外类型比较相似，主要在合同管理方式上侧重点不同，以及发起者和关系人管理角度不同。而研发性IT项目更侧重于技术性研发的管理，例如：编码（架构、模块编码、接口等）；测试（单元、整体...）等。
&我们这里主要讨论的是对内非IT产业的IT项目管理。这类IT项目通常可以划分六个阶段：Gate0启动立项Gate1--&需求分析Gate2--&开发Gate3--&测试验收Gate4--&发布产品Gate5--&审查结项Gate6；
当然根据公司已有的一些组织模式或流程管理程序，可能有些不同的定义。
& & 通常是在前一年尾或年初，&管理层发起一些想法、大的规划，
在Gate0的时候变成大概的计划（需要做，但还没项目经理）。Gate0之后
制定项目章程、指派项目经理并进行可行性分析、组建团队等。
& & Phase1时，主要谈资源：业务单位的Key
User和相关负责人（ 可能需要加入采购准备合同事项）；IT单位的FA、DA等。
谈钱：需要多少预算？是否OK？如何分摊等。
谈计划：大概的milestone会出来，什么时候开始那个阶段，什么时候结束。
谈范围：哪些需要做？哪些不需要做？
Phase2时，主要确定资源：业务单位（可能需要加入财务来确定预算和效益分析的承认）、IT单位（可能需要加入&基础架构、网络、服务器等相关人员）、外部顾问（如有需要）；&形成责任分配矩阵、资源日历。
确定需求范围（形成工作分解结构、&批准的需求文档）；风险分析（识别的风险、应对措施；应急措施等）
确定预算（形成成本预算表）；
确定计划（概括和细化的横道图）；&
效益分析（量化的预计项目完成后可带来的效益--项目成败的一大指标）
沟通管理计划（周会、月会、Gate View、报告和对象）
变更管理计划：通常Gate2后，范时成通常就不能随意变动，所以变更管理计划很重要，需要制定哪些人有权决定变更、需要走怎样的流程。
&通常Gate2时，也会确定采购合同。所以整个项目可以说阶段1和2是很重要，也需要占用整个项目的大部分时间。有些人会在Gate2之前插入一个CRP（Capacity
Request Plan能力需求计划），以便小范围的试运行这个项目，让Key
Users更多参与和接受培训，更熟悉项目涉及的系统应用内容， 这样对需求获取也更精准，上线后反弹阻力会小很多，人总是会对自己不熟悉的东西有种防备或抗拒心理。
Phase3时，主要是对开发的确认，IT内部测试是否通过！通常这个阶段的Gate View涉及人员主要IT内部的.
Phase4时，主要是用户测试验收、对终端用户的培训以及准备Go
Live相关工作（如系统功能部署、数据迁移、切换时间点等）。同时也需要考虑上线后，系统维护的交接团队及培训。
Phase5时，主要是上线运行情况分析报告。这段时间通过项目组会给一定的维护期，并做交接事项、评测团队绩效、解散团队。
Phase6时，主要是完成绩效报告（效益分析测量结果，所以上面Gate2定义的效益分析一定是要可以量化的，否则有点棘手。）。总结经验教训等。
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。Shadowgate Review - IGN
You've Come This Far...
Now Reading
Shadowgate Review
Death by Retro
Aside from the occasional skeleton tied to a rock,
takes no prisoners. It’s a roleplaying adventure game in which the idea of a warm welcome is a book on a pedestal that makes the floor drop away when you try to pick it up, with an instant death that sends you right back to the main menu with little more than a mocking comment. Don’t let anyone tell you that this is simply “old-school brutality.” The original Shadowgate of 1987 was the Vlad the I in an era where violence and cruelty was expected, it was still a game people looked at and whispered “Damn…” So for fans of Shadowgate, this is a mostly excellent remake, but very much something you have to go into expecting to take a beating.
Advertisement
Advertisement
& Previous
It’s not simply the original game with modern graphics, but an expanded version of it with brand-new rooms and altered puzzles, and three difficulty levels. These affect affect both the in-game timers, like how long your torches last before plunging you into lethal blackness, and a number of the puzzles. On Journeyman level for instance, a wraith of cold and dark can be defeated by shoving your torch into it. On Master level, you need an enchanted flame to take it out. The new content is a mixed blessing, but mostly an improvement. There’s more story this time, though it’s still largely trivial, humourless, and with an ending more interested in selling you the sequel than wrapping this specific adventure up. The additional bits in the opening caves and castle itself are mostly solid, though the castle suffers from being far less focused just as the map explodes in size, and an extended trip through crystal caves later on contributes little but boredom when the adventure should be politely wrapping up. Still, it’s all familiar enough to still feel nostalgic, while different enough to demand a return to the same kind of thinking as the original game rather than simply repeating well-trodden steps. For extra nostalgia, it’s also possible to play with the original music, transitions, and text. The new graphics are recommend, though, because they offer an excellent sense of place. Lavishly drawn backgrounds look like other games’ concept art and some minimalist but good use of sound and animation pay off, especially in the particle effects and glows that add a sense of life to the static backgrounds. The creepy way the danger music rises as your torch starts flickering is a great touch, too. Less satisfyingly though, the UI feels like a product of the ‘80s, with very clunky and slow interactions and nowhere near enough unique responses to the verbs to justify having them all, instead of figuring that you’ll always want to “hit” the goblin or “open” the door. Anything that involves going back and forward between inventory and main screen is just too slow, and not helped by Shadowgate insisting that item interactions are done in the right order - using Mirror on Hammer gives a shrug instead of just whacking the silly thing. The clumsiness can also lead to death at times, like with the dragon puzzle from the original game. As before, you have to hastily grab a shield to protect against its fire breath long enough to get items. Here, though, you have to specifically use it on yourself rather than take it. Every death also means sitting through the death itself, plus any animations and text, and the death screen, and going back to the main menu, before being able to load a save and try another approach.
Got feedback on our player?
We want to hear it.
So, that’s for existing fans: A lovingly made, very true-to_the-original game that’s a little less cruel, but certainly hasn’t gone soft. “Less cruel” here is, after all, defined as double-checking that you really do want to kill yourself with your own sword before actually letting you slice your throat open. But how about new players? Is it worth jumping in and seeing what the fuss is about? Probably not, no. If you do, be prepared for much frustration. Shadowgate is hard, which is good, but it’s often unfair about that, which is not. Its idea of a time limit, for instance, is a banshee curse inflicted early in the adventure that can easily kill you long before you find the cure, with a second time limit thanks to the torches (which are in limited supply) and puzzles that are often poorly signposted. What’s part of a later puzzle, or often, what affects what - is trial and error, even with a floating skull on hand to offer vague hints - and trial by constantly backtracking through a huge map in search of anything that will do anything except kill you, and fully aware that time will eventually do it if the dungeon doesn’t.
Got feedback on our player?
We want to hear it.
Bear in mind too that objects can be anywhere in the world, and not necessarily accessible or obvious. At one point for instance, you need to make a grappling hook. Even with a minor prompt if you happen to look at it, it’s not a particularly intuitive leap from that to the hook-shaped stand of a burning brazier in a previous part of the world, especially when there’s a whole other puzzle chain to get it. Like a lot of classic games, Shadowgate is reliant on nostalgia value for getting away with a lot, and for fans who know what to expect, that’s fine. There is, however, a reason this kind of design
was viciously beaten to death with a baseball bat and buried in quicklime in the early parts of the ‘90s: It’s bad. If a new game came out today out using Shadowgate’s design tropes, but without the familiar name to justify them, it wouldn’t be remotely acceptable.
This is a definite case where nostalgia is inseparable from the game, and
is a great modernisation of a classic of the adventure-RPG genre. An abusive classic, but still. If you remember it fondly, it’s both a return trip and a good chunk more of the same, beautifully drawn and well made, despite a clumsy UI and a few annoyances. If not though, the design is past its sell-by date, and it’s still primarily a 1987 game with a makeover rather than a 2014 game with history.
IN THIS ARTICLE
Shadowgate hates you and wants you dead, but fans wouldn’t have it any other way.
Excellent remake
Expands on original
Obtuse puzzles
Poor interface
Often brutally unfair
IGN Recommendsunder,review的论文可以写吗,项目申请
under,review的论文可以写吗,项目申请
【职称论文】 池锝网
本文已影响 人
篇一：毕业心得分享我的投稿经历-酸甜苦辣 毕业论文心得分享我的投稿经历-酸甜苦辣.txt爱，就大声说出来，因为你永远都不会知道，明天和意外，哪个会先来！石头记告诉我们：凡是真心爱的最后都散了，凡是混搭的最后都团圆了。你永远看不到我最寂寞的时候，因为在看不到你的时候就是我最寂寞的时候！ JAP论文接收 分享我的投稿经历－酸甜苦辣 guohuazhong
今天收到邮件，我的一篇Journal of Applied Physics 论文已被接收，心情当时还是有点激动。虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大概2.2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇SCI论文，但回想这一年发文章的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。 这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到Physics Letters A上，在经历了Technical check，with editor，under review后，于三月二十号收到编辑的决定信，当时就傻了－拒稿！受打击了。下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与虫友们分享，一方面我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享，我想我没有理由不拿出来哈！同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！好了，废话说了一大堆，不说了，下面是Physics Letters A 的审稿意见： Ms. Ref. No.: ×××××× Title: ××××× Physics Letters A
Dear professor ××,
Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received.
You will see that they are advising against publication of your work.
Therefore I must reject it. For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
×××（编辑名） Editor Physics Letters A
Reviewers' comments: The authors present results of the 3D electron potential of a gated quantum point contact in a AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure. In contrast to earlier studies, it is now possible to derive the potential landshape without any adjustable parameter. The resultsstill agree with earlier investigations using simpler phenomenological models. Since the used nextnano3 program is available since a couple of years, I wonder why this has not been done earlier.
The authors emphasize an application of their results. Having the complete potential landshape might help, in the future, to better understand the quantized acoustoelectric current in SETSAW devices and to improve their performance.
However, the authors do not show or even discuss how this can be achieved. Therefore I believe that in the present form the paper is not suitable for publication. The authors should consider the following suggestions, questions, and remarks.
1) Page 1, first paragraph '... due to the negatively applied gate voltage ...'. It is the SAW that drives the electrons through the contact, not the gate voltage. Maybe replace this sentence by '..., depending on the applied gate voltage'.
2) Page 3, paragraph starting with 'Generally, the quantized ...' '... with fixed x = 1050 nm and ...'. Skip the '.0'. One could add that this is exactly at the center of the device.
3) At the end of the same paragraph is '... once the bias is below ...' Should this not be the gate instead of the bias voltage?
4) Page 4, paragraph starting with 'As we know, in the ...' '... To be different from previous calculations ...' replace by '... In contrast to previous calculations ...'.
5) The strongly different behaviour above and below the pinch-off voltage is not obvious for the non-experts. All curves look more or less the same. One could, for example, add another figure, or insert, to show the potential height versus gate voltage.
6) How do these theoretical results of potential height versus gate voltage compare with experiments? There exists at least one report to determine the potential height of quantum-point contacts below pinch-off as function of gate voltage (Gloos et al., Phys. Rev. B 73, 06)). Possibly, one could also compare the present data with 3D simulations of quantum dots (Vasileska et al., Semicond. Sci. Technol. 13, A37 (1998)). 7) Figure 1，It would be better to mark the distance between the two metal gates as the relevant parameter, and not the size of one gate.
8) Figure 3 The numbering of the two density axes looks rather odd. Could it not be done with integers, like 3 instead of 3.2 or 3.0?
9) Figure 5 (b) Should there not be an anomaly or kink in the potential near the Fermi level? 在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5）和6)意见非常好，后来自己想想，决定把文章来个彻底的修改。 1.
改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了几个英语的语法。这个很容易改。 2.
改动文章的结构。换了很多图。因为我们做的是实验和理论计算的结合。首先，我加了实验。把我们实验当中照的有关样品的结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。 3.
把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面的审稿意见就提出来了，这点后面再说。也就是满足了审稿意见6）。然后把计算的势垒高度画成与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5） 4.
加了理论计算声电电流。这个在PLA稿中没有，我们的计算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式的形式。 这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会忘记的5.12四川汶川大地震。受地震的影响，文章的修改拖了三四个月。改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆子也大起来了，于是就投到了Physical Review B中的Rapid Communications板块，很快编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为regular paper 投Physical Review B。这里我还是把编辑的信贴出来与大家分享。 Dear Dr. ×××,
We acknowledge the receipt of the above manuscript submitted to the Rapid Communications section of Physical Review B.
We have examined your manuscript and it appears to be quite focused on application and material science. Therefore, a more detailed letter as to what new and significant physics is presented in your manuscript and why Physical Review B is the most appropriate journal for your manuscript would be very helpful.
Please note that in doing a preliminary character count, we have found that your manuscript is too long for the short paper sections of our journal. In view of this and the above, we feel that it will be more productive if we consider this as a regular article when we receive a persuasive response to the above concern. You may also wish to revise your manuscript so that the new and significantphysics is better highlighted.
In addition, please expand it into a regular article format (e.g. by adding section headings) and we encourage you to add any material our readership may benefit from since no length limit applies.
We will hold your manuscript in our office until we receive your response.
Yours sincerely,
当时觉得编辑这么说了，感觉还是挺有希望的，于是快马加鞭修改，之后就投出去了。大概历时三个月收到审稿意见。判决结果－拒！有一次败了！当时心情十分沮丧。审稿意见如下： Dear Dr. ×××,
The above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees. Comments from the reports are enclosed.
We regret that in view of these comments we cannot accept the paper for publication in the Physical Review.
Yours sincerely,
×××× Assistant Editor Physical Review B Email: prb@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://prb.aps.org/
Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/ PRL Celebrates 50 Years: http://prl.aps.org/50years/ PRB Editors' Suggestions: http://prb.aps.org/#suggestions
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of the First Referee ×××/××× ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The paper aims at the numerical solution of the set of Schroedinger and Poisson equations for a split-gate structure and subsequent application of the results to calculation of quantized acoustoelectric current. The paper is sound and well written. However, in my view, it does not contain enough new physics to warrant its publication in the Physical Review. Since the work seems to be useful to people involved in optimizing standards of electrical current I recommend to resubmit the paper to a journal more specialized on applications, such as the Journal of Applied Physics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of the Second Referee -- ×××/××× ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The subject of the paper is an interesting one, although the focus of the community has shifted away from it in the meantime. Nevertheless the paper would be worth publishing if it gave better evidence in the interesting electron transport mechanism prevailing in this effect.
Specifically the authors present numerical results for the potential in a SAW driven split-gate induced small channel. They claim in the abstract that &the potential barrier heights calculated in the closed-channel-regime agree well with the experiment we performed.& To my understanding they (implicitly) claim that their numerical method provides better understanding of the SETSAW effect and that it should allow for a better design of such devices.
However, they do not give any experimental result to support their claim. The quantitative results of the numerical calculations could prove their superiority by comparison with experimental result obtained from correspondingly tailored devices, but the authors only repeat general statements like &...agrees very well with experiment.&, without presenting experiments. Without specific comparisons the reader (if he knows the literature well) just learns that there is a kind of qualitative agreement. But such qualitative, and even semi-quantitative, agreement has been obtained before with simpler phenomenological 'ansatz' like potential distributions. The present paper reaches similar conclusions as previous work but never demonstrates where the numerical calculations are more precise or provide better understanding of the physics.
The style of the paper is not appropriate and should be revised by a native English speaker. I recommend to reject the paper.
不过沮丧归沮丧，生活还得继续，继续改投吧，好在第一个审稿人给我指明了一条生路，那就是改投Journal of Applied Physics，于是，本人按照审稿人的意见又改了一些。由于一篇二：分享两篇SCI论文被接收心得 分享两篇SCI论文被接收心得! 做为研究生,不可否认SCI论文在大家心目的地位,三年的硕士,或者再三年的博士,我们一直开为之奋斗着,痛苦着,快乐着．而一些诸如submit,under review,reject,minor revision or major revision的字眼则时刻牵动着我们那脆弱而且不自信的心．当稿件投出以后，想必你也像我一样每天不停的刷新邮件，而最害怕的莫过于看到&I regret to have to inform you that.......&这样的消息了．
回想自己的点滴，以及最近小小的成功，我觉得我有必要，也有义务向各位朋友们分享．硕博连读的第三年，具体说来是2008年初，我的两篇ＳＣＩ论文先后被接收了，下面我想回忆一下两篇论文投稿以及被接收的过程． 第一篇： 杂志：Talanta （２.８分） Received at Editorial Office: 18-SEP-2007 Article revised: 15-JAN-2008 Article accepted for publication: 18-JAN-2008 专业：生物分析化学类 说起这篇文章，可是让我痛苦了一整年，实验很多，做的很辛苦，数据相对繁多，由于这是我第一篇文章，写作方面也是摸石头过河，逐句的模仿．为了写这篇文章，我仔细研读了该领域的大约１００篇文献，对别人写的好的句子，类似的句子都做了标记，在写作的过程中想起要表达什么意思的时候马上随时翻阅，这样下来，每天写一小段，有时候甚至每天就写那么几小句，大约一个月后，我发现一篇包含abstract,intrduction,experiment,results and discussion初稿居然完成了． 初稿完成后，放了大约个把星期不管，接着做其他的实验，待一个星期过后再来研读，发现文章写的错误百出，句子连贯性，逻辑性，以及整篇文章的通读性都很差，于是又是仔细研读别人的论文，学习再学习，每天读一点，回头看看自己的文章，再改一点，又是将近个把月，一篇有模有样的初稿出现了，这时候我迫不极待的想把文章投出去了，于是放了两三天后，写了个cover letter,花了一晚上时间（想必应该也有人花一整个晚上在Elsevier投稿系统上的痛苦经历吧），把稿件投向了一个本领域的分析杂志．稿件投出去大概半个月，收到了主编的信，主编认为我能回答他的问题，以及按他的意见修改就可能出版．可能是经验欠缺，我在收到信后的一个星期，就把修改稿返回了过去，对其中的提到的不足和问题我只是在文章中引用了其他一些文献和做了自己的说明，显然，这样的举动在主编和认为是很不认真的，过了一个月后，收到了Final Decision，那就是拒绝了． Dear ***, & On behalf of the editor handling your manuscript, I am writing to you in reference to your manuscript entitled:************ I regret to have to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in ***. This decision has been reached in light of the comments made by the referees. The detailed remarks are appended below.Reviewers' comments: & Reviewer 1: &*************& seemed to contain sufficient material for publication purpose. However, unfortunately, the authors did not address sufficiently what are the main advantages of this particular detection technique over previously reported ones. ************* Overall, the English language proved to be insufficient for publication purpose and needs to be revised. Specific care should be taken with regards to prepositions since it can alter the meaning of a statement Editor: & Unfortunately, the reviewer has recommended against publication of this work in ***. In examining the reviewer's specific comments, I note that some of the comments mirror those that I made when the manuscript was initially submitted. In particular, the reviewer indicates that the authors have still not made a convincing case for the advantages of the proposed method over earlier techniques. Given these considerations, I must regrettably recommend rejection of this manuscript. 就因为没有用心写出文章的优点来，就这样被毙掉了，感到非常痛心，教训深刻！ 接下来，我又挑选了一个杂志，我自认为应该很容易中，因为我在那个杂志上看到有类似的文章，且我自认为内容还不如我的好．可是两本杂志属于不同的出版集团，引用文献的格式完全不同，又痛苦的花了一个晚上把文献格式改了过来，这种工作就和做针线活差不多，睁着眼睛在看，你不能急，一急就郁闷的不得了． 于是乎，又是一翻上传的痛苦经历，可是，不到两天，不幸又降临了，居然认为我的稿件不适合该杂志，说白了，就是不想要嘛． Dear Dr***, I am writing to you on behalf of Editor ****. We regret to inform you that **** is unable to accept your manuscript *******, Manuscript No. ABC- for publication in *****. In view of the limited number of pages available to us each year to cover the entire field of analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, its instrumental advances and its wide range of applications, we can only publish a selection of the papers submitted to our journal. We are sorry not to be able to send you better news. 这个时候，什么情绪都有了，有时候想，是不是自己的工作还没有够的上档次？是不是文章真的写的很差，因为还没有接收过ＳＣＩ论文，所以这个时候的自信心真的是非常的差，后来干脆把文章晾在了一边． 心情平静下来了又想，花了这么多心思做的东西，是不可能放弃的，况且当初在选这个题目的时候就认为这个工作还是有一定意思和意义的．于是，我根据之前审稿人的意思，又补充了一些实验，在写作上也丰富了一些．过了一个多月，我又开始了新的冲击． 这一次，显然，努力得到回报了． Dear professor ***, & We have received expert review of your manuscript. You will see that revision of your manuscript is advised, and suggestions are offered for improving the manuscript and it's impact. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to consider the paper for publication in Talanta. & For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. Reviewers' comments: & Overall, this is a paper that deserves to be published, but requires revision.(有这一句就够了，当时心情超好，无法形容） 象下面这样的意见，也是非常中肯的，感谢审稿人，感谢编辑，感谢ＣＣＴＶ！ General comments: & The English used in this paper requires major revision. I do not underestimate the challenge of writing a scientific paper in a language that is not the native tongue. However, the science is currently being complicated by the grammar of the paper. In particular, single/plural conflicts and changes of (and inappropriate use of) tenses (see especially section 2.5 where the middle third of the text switches to the present tense). Improving the paper in this way would ensure that the reader can focus upon the science 1. The discussions throughout the manuscript is superficial, thus thorough and comprehensive discussions are required in the section of &Results and Discussion&. & 2. Conclusion should not be a duplication of the Abstract. 当然，也提出了其他的不少意见，这次我可是对待的相当认真，其中有一条审稿意见我不太明白，为此我在某专业论文上发贴和别人讨论了一个多星期． 修改了个把月，上传，第三天，刷新邮件，收到来信如下： Dear professor ***, & I am pleased to confirm that your paper &******& has been accepted for publication in Talanta. & With kind regards, 接下来讲讲我的第二篇 Journal title: Electrochemistry Communications （3.48分） Received at Editorial Office: 23-DEC-2007 Article revised: 29-JAN-2008 Article accepted for publication: 30-JAN-2008 实际上，在第一篇文章的辗转经历中，第二篇文章的实验已经在进行并且写作了，有了第一次的经历，第二篇文章在写作上显然轻松了许多，考虑到还有不多久快要放寒假，因此我在考虑把稿件要么投一个审稿周期长点的杂志，那么在假期中就不需要为稿件操心了，要么就投一个快点的杂志，干脆在放假前就搞定，最后经过权衡，我选择了后者．日晚，稿件上传，１９日，收到回信，还以为是拒了，吓一跳，原来是文章长了，要缩短． & Electrochemistry Communications & Dear professor ***, & This paper is too long for Electrochemistry Communications which aims to publish short, urgent communications (see Guide for Authors). Please either submit it elsewhere as a full paper or shorten it to Communication Length and resubmit. & For Communication Length please observe the following formula: & Total number of words + 200 x (No of figures + No of tables) & 3000. & Your paper currently contains 2929 words and 4 figures. According to the formula above, this is the equivalent of 3729 words, which is too long for this journal. & Yours sincerely, & R. Compton & Editor in Chief & Electrochemistry Communications & & Electrochemistry Communications & Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory & South Parks Road & Oxford & OX1 3QZ & UK 按照要求，仔仔细细的缩短，又顺便修改润色了一翻，花了一个星期，在西方的圣诞节的前一天，我把稿件发了出去，当时西方正在放假，可想而知，稿件躺在里面毫无动静，大约到了元月８日，我觉得也应该放假归来了吧，可怎么还没有给我的稿件那怕是分配一个稿件号呢？因为这个杂志向来速度是很快的，通常一个月内完成从稿件接受到接收的过程． 于是，我写了封信给编辑： Dear professor R. Compton We have shorten our manuscript entitled &*********& to communication length and resubmitted it to Electrochemistry Communications on 23 December 2007, but have not, as yet, receive the assigned manuscript number. We fear that the manuscript may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received it. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, 第二天，回复了，并且马上分配了稿件号，果然上班了，可能是假期归来，身心疲惫吧．做编辑也不容易． 这样半个多月的某天早晨，已经放假了，可是大雪封路，回不了家啊，干脆在床上睡懒觉，师姐的一个电话把我叫醒了，说让我查查邮件，文章要修改，１０天之内完成． 打开电脑，一个喜庆的邮件展现在我面前． & Electrochemistry Communications & Dear professor ***, & We will be pleased to accept your manuscript after revision in the light of the enclosed referee's comments provided they can be attended to within 10 days. & Please submit a letter fully detailing your response to each point raised by the referee along with your revised manuscript. & Yours sincerely, & R. Compton & Editor in Chief & Electrochemistry Communications & Reviewers' comments: & Reviewer #1: & The authors of this manuscript reported a new application of electrochemiluminescence (ECL) method in assaying telomerase activity. In this work, the magnetic beads-based TRAP-ECL assay was found to be a rapid and very sensitive (c.a. 100 fold increase in sensitivity) method to detect telomerase activity in tumor cells, as compared with the conventional TRAP method. This is an important work for the developed novel TRAP-ECL assay may become a first line assay for clinical diagnosis and prognosis of cancer. Additionally, the paper was organized and presented well, and literatures were cited adequately. I recommend publication after minor revisions. & Additional Comments: & 1. A previous important work by Miao and Bard (Anal. Chem. 79-5386) on magnetic beads-based ECL for DNA detection should be cited. & 2. The words &?about 100 fold lower than that ?& (page 6, line2) should be changed to &?about 100 fold higher than that ?&. 审稿人很认同我的工作，小小的修改，哪要１０天，个把小时就可以完成啊．就这样很快的完成了修改，第二天就接到了录用通知．心里那是相当的高兴的． 小小的总结： １英文写作：两篇文章全部是由我一个人操刀写成，期间除了第一篇文章找一位老师改了几个句子，能够得到发表，说明最终英文的写作还是达标了．我的心得那就是模仿，没错，看别人怎么写，再套用，说实话，我们自己写的句子有几句能信的过呢？说到模仿，那也必须过大量的文献，当你写作卡住的时候，你得想得到我在哪里看到过类似的句子才行．我前后看过的文献大概有２００篇左右． ２投稿杂志的选择：从我的经历来看，显然并不能以自己的主观想法为信条，有时候你认为好的，适合的杂志显然并不适合你，当然，这不一定是你的不适合某某杂志，更可信的理由是你的稿件恰好不适合某个审稿的胃口．相关热词搜索：
[under,review的论文可以写吗,项目申请]相关的文章
看过本文的人还看了
【职称论文】图文推荐
Copyright & 2006 -
All Rights Reserved
池锝网 版权所有