[期刊] 投稿經驗 - Nature Nanotechnology
總算忙完MRS的talk,趁現在有空的時候來分享一下我這幾年投Nature的經驗
--
領域: Device/RRAM/Metal Insulator Transition
期刊名稱: Nature Nanotechnology (26.3)
被accepted/revised/rejected: accepted and published
投稿後大約多久才收到結果: 半年
reviewer的數目(comment數目): 3
--
第一次投到Nature,大約是兩三年前。寫的內容著重在device properties
Suggested reviewers則是著重在RRAM的幾個大頭+兩個perovskites的專家
雖然通過editor那關,不過很快就被reviewer reject,沒什麼爭論機會
第二次的時候投到Nature Materials,
並且改寫以物理面解釋(強調Anderson localization),
device/physics part大約是50/50
回來的結果:reviewer#1-recommend to publish,
#2-positive, minor revision
#3-negative, 5 comments
主要原因是,現在RRAM主流是以相信ionic motion為主,而我們則是強調我們的device
是purely electronic,reviewer的意見主要是要我們證明沒有atomic motion
Reviewer#2 建議 endurance+cross section TEM,但是老闆覺得不實際
就算切下去沒看到,也不能證明沒有,因此稍微做了修改,這個大致上不成問題
Reviewer#3則比較麻煩,首先認為我們提的Anderson localization太模糊
Strong/weak disorder沒有quantify,並要我們提出carrier density,band width,
localization length的確實數據,其他四個意見則比較容易回答
接下來則是痛苦的開始,因為實驗室只有我一個PhD,
而且我們實驗室對光學部份不擅長,跟我一起弄的只有一個master
結果花了一年才弄出來,跟reviewer#2要求的實驗一起整理後回覆
但是被editor以not the correct experiment為理由拒絕了
第三次投Science,秒殺,建議投到more specific journals
第四次則改投到Nature Nanotechnology
寫的方式再做修改,首先是不強調strong/weak localization,
改成Anderson's criterion of metal/insulator in random materials
device層面的東西大多移往supplementary(device/physics大概是20/80)
suggested reviewer則改成以物理背景為主的,少數為device背景
回來的結果是reviewer#1-reject, already done before(3PRL and 1 Science)
#2-positive, 7 comments
reviewer#2的東西大多很好回答,因此仔細研究了reviewer#1提出的paper
並且發現了非常大的不同點,而且反而對我們更有利
(因為paper裡面有預測到未來可以做出我們提的方法,這點在近幾年Nature paper
中很受歡迎,像是memristor,就是從前人的prediction中發現真的存在)
回覆後 reviewer#1: "the authors demonstrate convincingly how their findings
differ from previous work and they see important implications for
nanotechnology. The response to the second referee's report is convincing
as well. Hence I recommend publication in Nature Nanotechnology, there are
a few points xxxx"
Reviewer#2: The authors convincingly answered all the questions in details
and significantly modified the manuscript accordingly. I now recommend
this paper to be published.
但是...
冒出了reviewer#3,而且是最麻煩的類型(大魔王都最後出來嗎... Orz)
這個應該可以推測出大概就是Waser,S. Williams這幾個大老的手了
首先是認為我們的東西不算nano, "Thin films that are macroscopically large
in the other two dimensions simply are not classified as "nano"
(意思是所有的thin film都不算nano是嗎...囧)
另外是不相信我們的TEM,"A TEM image showing 6nm x 6nm portion only reveals
one trillionth of the device. We have no idea what kind of large particles
could be dominating the distribution of metallic particles"
首先我們先argue了第一點,因為我們發現的device only exists in nano size,
相對來說,很多RRAM透過forming,不見得要在nano size
第二點,除了再次強調光學,TEM,XRD,PDF之外,提出了uniformity concerns,
"Since spectroscopy, XRD and PDF did not reveal metallic particles,
therefore, large particles if they do exist must be relatively few.
A common strategy is to examine the yield and statistics of the device."
找了08~10當中不同材料的statistics,至少挖了20~30篇(TiO2, NiO, etc...)
並且用weibull exponent k value跟我們的做了比較,證明我們的uniformity
比其他的都好,不可能是large particle造成這麼高的k value statistics
接下來似乎是鬼打牆
reviewer#3回覆"the authors have admitted their erroneous"(有嗎?)
並且持續認為thin film cannot be consider as nano,建議投其他的期刊
幸好editor直接決定要publish,因此也就算告一段落
--
感想: 為了這一篇,其他很多內容都被犧牲掉,去年來的post doc看到我們的
supplementary material,都說這些可以讓他發好幾篇APL了
Nature類型的期刊,切入角度很重要,除了上述所說的(老闆說的:從舊有的理論,
做出新的東西這種類型外)寫法近年來受歡迎,容易通過editor這關
(畢竟Nature editor權力蠻大,第一關刷很多),也會影響reviewer的類型
嚴格上說起來,Nat. Mat.一開始是看起來最有希望的,而Nat. Nanotech.
則是一開始面對比較critical的評論,但後來運氣不錯editor直接決定
不然不知道要argue多久
原本一直覺得大概會拿不到paper了
現在演講也講完了,可以專心的等Advanced materials這篇出來後就要準備
找工作跟畢業了
沒有按end的人真是感謝你的捧場~
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 76.99.61.55
推
05/02 11:02, , 1F
05/02 11:02, 1F
推
05/02 11:03, , 2F
05/02 11:03, 2F
推
05/02 11:15, , 3F
05/02 11:15, 3F
推
05/02 11:16, , 4F
05/02 11:16, 4F
推
05/02 11:16, , 5F
05/02 11:16, 5F
推
05/02 11:24, , 6F
05/02 11:24, 6F
推
05/02 11:28, , 7F
05/02 11:28, 7F
推
05/02 11:48, , 8F
05/02 11:48, 8F
推
05/02 12:48, , 9F
05/02 12:48, 9F
推
05/02 12:55, , 10F
05/02 12:55, 10F
推
05/02 13:06, , 11F
05/02 13:06, 11F
推
05/02 13:53, , 12F
05/02 13:53, 12F
推
05/02 14:21, , 13F
05/02 14:21, 13F
推
05/02 14:24, , 14F
05/02 14:24, 14F
推
05/02 14:31, , 15F
05/02 14:31, 15F
推
05/02 15:08, , 16F
05/02 15:08, 16F
推
05/02 15:58, , 17F
05/02 15:58, 17F
推
05/02 16:05, , 18F
05/02 16:05, 18F
推
05/02 17:20, , 19F
05/02 17:20, 19F
推
05/02 21:04, , 20F
05/02 21:04, 20F
推
05/02 21:41, , 21F
05/02 21:41, 21F
推
05/02 21:52, , 22F
05/02 21:52, 22F
推
05/02 23:52, , 23F
05/02 23:52, 23F
推
05/03 00:14, , 24F
05/03 00:14, 24F
推
05/03 00:28, , 25F
05/03 00:28, 25F
推
05/03 00:29, , 26F
05/03 00:29, 26F
推
05/03 08:32, , 27F
05/03 08:32, 27F
→
05/03 09:17, , 28F
05/03 09:17, 28F
推
05/03 09:45, , 29F
05/03 09:45, 29F
推
05/03 10:59, , 30F
05/03 10:59, 30F
推
05/03 12:19, , 31F
05/03 12:19, 31F
推
05/03 13:02, , 32F
05/03 13:02, 32F
推
05/03 14:37, , 33F
05/03 14:37, 33F
推
05/03 16:34, , 34F
05/03 16:34, 34F
推
05/03 17:31, , 35F
05/03 17:31, 35F
推
05/03 23:07, , 36F
05/03 23:07, 36F
推
05/04 00:36, , 37F
05/04 00:36, 37F
推
05/06 12:38, , 38F
05/06 12:38, 38F
推
05/07 02:37, , 39F
05/07 02:37, 39F
→
05/07 05:31, , 40F
05/07 05:31, 40F
推
05/08 10:57, , 41F
05/08 10:57, 41F
推
05/08 17:21, , 42F
05/08 17:21, 42F
推
05/16 18:45, , 43F
05/16 18:45, 43F