Professional response to "娃最近科研的經曆，請教一下有相關經驗的家長們怎麽跟娃溝通"

by beibei_2018---

---

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for your previous handling of our manuscript ( title, number). We appreciated very much for the enthusiatic support and insightful comments from you and all five reviewers. 

While the consenus views of our manuscripts were very positive, some reviewers advised us to do A, B, C. One of the comments was to compare our method with the state-of-art research by... With the comment as a guideline, we carefully designed our code (methods?) and re-ran the program. It turned out that the operating speed (or efficiecy) of our method was dozens of times, or even up to 100 times, faster than the one, although the tradeoff was that the accuracy of our method was roughly reduced up to 0.xx% compared to xxx (Figure_).  These new results  strongly endorse our prior conclusion. Meanwhile, our studies provide an alternative powerful toolbox (or similar thing) to xx.

We believe that our manuscript has been substantially strengthened with the inclusion of these new data, here we re-submitted it for publication in your journal.

 Sincerely,

 

xxx

 additional notes:

1) It is understoodable that the youth would feel disppointed when a negative comment (s) are made on the work which one think is the best. Patience will grow as one gets mature. Scientists always need to read and think the reviewers' critisms in a postive manner as the reviwers spend lots of time in reading the manuscript and provide many pieces of useful whereas free advice, which would typically promote /polish the manuscript to a certain degree. Never confront them. 

2) "學術界有些人也是靠“人有多大膽，地有多大產”來發成果"-- this is not correct-- as the reprodicibility is a fundamental rule for the academic field-- one might mislead the field for a short period-- however, time will wash away all the waste-- any purposely misconduct will be paid back later on in the academic field.

3) "各位有經驗的家長請問怎麽handle"-- the mentors/professors are the right people to deal with this. 

 

-------------------------

娃的一篇論文近期被某國際學術會議發回來要求修改。一共5個reviewers，其中一個strong accept, 一個 accept，三個 revise and resubmit。其中有一個提到娃沒有把他的方法跟最新的好方法比較，同時建議了幾個state-of-art 的相關研究。因為交稿時間比較緊，娃隻能硬著頭皮讀推薦的論文，同時上網找現成的代碼。運氣好還真找到原作者的代碼，隻要簡單跟他的代碼對接一下就能跑。結果讓人大跌眼鏡，那些算法好是好，比如說精確度能比娃的精確度高個0.X% 這樣，但運行時間是娃的幾十倍甚至上百倍。娃跟我抱怨的時候，我還不太相信。娃就給我看了下結果。又嚐試了在嚴格的同樣運行時間下跑，結果那些算法反而精確度比娃的差蠻多。看那些論文都吹得天花亂墜的，理論推導和實驗數據也不錯，還發表在不錯的期刊上，沒想到會這樣。娃因此挺困惑。我能怎麽說，難道說或許學術界有些人也是靠“人有多大膽，地有多大產”來發成果？不想讓娃有這樣負麵的印象，覺得太打擊他的科研積極性了。各位有經驗的家長請問怎麽handle?

 

所有跟帖： 

• Referees用自己的權利夾帶私貨, 要給他們麵子. 最好itemize你做了哪些修改. -BeLe- ♀ (0 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 19:03:16

• Yes, there is a special document called "point to point -burnwoodhot- ♂ (526 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 19:08:26

• 該客氣的客氣，該反駁的反駁，該修改的修改。沒有什麽不可以的。 -FollowNature- ♂ (0 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 19:06:00

• when one is big and powerful enough, one can do it-- -burnwoodhot- ♂ (82 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 19:10:26

• My breaktime is over -- return to other commitments now-- -burnwoodhot- ♂ (43 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 19:13:53

• 喔，檀子裏有專業人士呀！ -河塘月色45- ♀ (173 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 19:59:02

• 謝謝幹貨，很有幫助。孩子不失望，我都跟他說了你既然要做，就做好被拒的準備，現在的結果已經比我們預想的要好了 -beibei_2018- ♀ (453 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 20:15:07

• 不要想太多 -trivial- ♀ (156 bytes) () 03/29/2023 postreply 20:25:20