扒一扒我和论文审稿人之间不得不说的明争暗斗( 四 ) 本文来源：知

审稿人显然没有非常仔细的读文章，可是这个误解比较微妙，不像前面那个例子显而易见。怎么办呢，我们还是决定申诉。我拟了一个稿子,首先开门见山，强调审稿人完全理解错了， ‘DearEditor,Wewouldliketoappealyourdecisiontorejectourmanuscriptforpublicationin“blahblah”.Asweunderstand,thedecisionisbasedontheassessmentofthesecondreviewer,that“thisideahasbeenknownforalongtime.Sothenoveltywithwhichtheauthorsclaimandtheimpactisalreadyknown.”Ifthatisthecase,wewouldNOTsubmitthemanuscriptto“blahblah”inthefirstplace.Indeed,itappearsthatthesecondreviewerfundamentallymisunderstandourconcept.’

随后指出， “Domainengineeringisindeedawell-knownidea,andhasbeenwidelyapplied.Bothblahandblahblah’sworksthatthereviewerreferredtodealwithdomainengineeringinferroelectricphase,notthetwinengineeringweproposed,”然后具体说明前面这些工作是关于电畴的，和我们所提的孪晶没有关系。

最后强调我们工作的新颖之处， “Ourconceptisfundamentallydifferentfromdomainengineering.Whiledomainengineeringinthesensewediscussedaboveisoftenreferredtoastwinengineering,whichseemstoconfusethesecondreviewer,ourtwinengineeringspecificallyreferstodeformationtwinoccurringinparaelectriccubicphase,intheabsenceofanydomainstructures.Suchideahasneverbeenproposedinliteraturebefore,andweshowthatbythisapproach,MPB-likebehaviorcanbeinducedinanyferroelectricsystems,andthustheimpactwillbetremendous.”

将这些讲清楚之后，我也笔锋一转，礼貌地给审稿人留了点余地， “Wearesorrythatthesecondreviewerdidnotseemtoappreciatethedifferencebetweenourtwinengineeringandtheconventionaldomainengineering,andwewillbemorethanhappytoexplainittothereviewer,andarticulatethedifferencemoreinthemanuscript.Giventhesupportfromthethirdreviewertoourmanuscript,andthesecondreviewer’sincorrectassertionregardingnoveltyandimpactofourconcept,werespectfullyrequestyourreconsiderationofyourdecision,andallowustosubmitarevisedmanuscriptandresponseforthesecondreviewertoexamine.”邮件发出去之后，编辑也很快回信了，接受申诉。