Emerald平台使用和投稿指南.ppt-广西大学图书馆.ppt

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 这些是我们长期合作的。。 学术会议 所有这些体现了Emerald在学术研究和出版服务的真正统一 * * * * * Your own peer review We are always TOO close to our own work to see its failings. Our sub-editors and proof-readers NEVER receive a perfect paper. You will look at your paper over and over again but you will miss errors. Yet the guy at the next desk will spot it straight away. Check your figures – do they add up, include a note if you have rounded them up. Read and re-read your paper for typos. A lot of proofreading is done by people who are not subject specialists; won’t necessarily spot any errors. Writers should ask not only the principal investigator to view drafts, but also every co-author, as well as fellow students or postdocs, and colleagues outside the immediate field of research. Lead authors should give co-authors set deadlines of 10 days to two weeks to suggest changes. Experienced authors counsel letting the draft sit for a few days before reading it with fresh eyes to catch mistakes or problems in flow. Blumberg prefers to read drafts aloud with his students to spot errors. At a minimum run your paper through a computer spell-checker but don’t rely on it. E.g. we published this as the affiliation of one of our book reviewers; he used spell check and so did we! * How to revise your paper Acknowledge the editor and set a revision deadline If you are unsure about any of the comments, seek clarification. If you disagree with them, say so and give good reasons explaining why you do not think a change is necessary. But try not to take a defensive position, treat comments objectively. Covering letter explaining clearly what revisions were requested and how you addressed each point, ideally providing specific page numbers. Makes life a lot easier for the editor. * Co-authorship as a possibility Co-authorship is often a good opportunity for first-time authors. Adds value and weight to the paper, can draw on a variety of strengths, cross-disciplinary. Three