盘点SCI论文的常见拒稿理由

摘要：据研究表明，初审阶段被拒比例为40%-75%。复审阶段被拒的概率在35%以上，下面我们从审稿人的角度分析，初审阶段如何才能避免文章被拒，投稿前可以一一比对，看有没有中枪的情况，赶紧再进行最后一波修改。

据研究表明，初审阶段被拒比例为40%-75%。复审阶段被拒的概率在35%以上，下面我们从审稿人的角度分析，初审阶段如何才能避免文章被拒，投稿前可以一一比对，看有没有中枪的情况，赶紧再进行最后一波修改。

退稿原因：稿件与现有文献相比没有重大进展，或者只是在略有不同的背景下复制了已知结果。

应对策略：

进行全面的文献综述，使用 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 等数据库扫描最近的论文，找出明显的研究空白。明确阐述新颖性：不要假设审稿人会 “明白”。你需要明确说明你的研究有何不同和价值。例如：“Unlike previous studies that focused on urban populations, our research examines the impact of air pollution on cardiovascular health in underrepresented rural communities using a novel data integration approach.”除非增量结果对建立更大的理论或应用至关重要，否则应避免使用增量结果。转投其他适合的期刊

当新颖性有限时你能做些什么？

即使你的论文只有适度的新颖性，给审稿人精心撰写的回复仍然可以产生很大的影响，尤其是在方法合理、结果有意义或适用的情况下。

如何有策略地回复呢？

1. 诚实地承认关注点，例如：

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. While we acknowledge that some aspects of our study build on previous work, we believe that the application of this method in [a new population/setting/context] provides valuable insight that has not yet been fully explored.

2. 强调现实世界的影响或实用价值，例如：

Though similar methods have been used, our study addresses an urgent clinical need in underserved rural populations, where evidence-based interventions remain limited. This context adds unique relevance to our findings.

3. 加强修订稿的框架设计，例如：

之前： "We studied the use of X in Y settings."

之后："To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the effectiveness of X in low-resource rural clinics, a context previously underrepresented in the literature."

退稿原因：论文缺乏逻辑流畅性，包含语法错误，或写作方式掩盖了科学内容。

✉️ 常见审稿人回复邮件

“While the study appears to address an important topic, the manuscript’s structure and language make it difficult to evaluate the scientific merit. Significant editing is required to improve readability and logical flow.”

应对策略：

遵循标准的 IMRaD 结构（引言、方法、结果和讨论）。大多数期刊都希望采用这种布局，因为它有助于读者和审稿人快速找到关键部分。提纲示例：Introduction：What is the problem, and why is it important?Methods：How was the research conducted?Results：What did you find?Discussion：What do the results mean in context? Tip：在每个部分下添加小标题（如 “2.1 研究人群”），以提高清晰度和导航性。使用清晰、简洁、正式的科学语言。向同事寻求反馈或使用专业编辑服务，尤其是在英语不是母语的情况下。也可使用人工智能辅助语法工具，如 Grammarly 或 Writefull。或者也可以找我们解决阅读目标期刊上发表的文章，了解其语气和风格。

退稿原因：实验设置有缺陷、缺乏控制，或者统计分析不足以支持结论。

✉️ 常见审稿人回复邮件

“We found the overall study concept interesting; however, the methodology lacks critical details, and there are concerns regarding the statistical analysis. Without clear controls and adequate sample size justification, the conclusions cannot be supported.”

应对策略：

说明方法选择的合理性，并加入适当的对照。回复示例：We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. We have now added a rationale for selecting the logistic regression model, which was based on the binary nature of the outcome variable and its robustness in similar prior studies (see Methods, paragraph 3).Tip：最好提供参考文献以支持你所选择的技术或工具。确保样本量充足，统计分析严谨且解释清楚。方法部分的例句：We conducted a priori power analysis using GPower 3.1, which indicated a required sample size of 85 participants per group to detect a medium effect size (d = 0.5) with 80% power at α = 0.05.*另外：一定要报告置信区间、P 值和效应大小。包括适当的对照和复制。例如：不要只比较患者接受治疗前和治疗后的情况，而应包括一个未接受治疗的对照组，以排除安慰剂效应或疾病的自然进展。考虑敏感性或亚组分析：为证明稳健性，可考虑在不同条件下进行分析，或报告不同亚组的结果。例如：我们进行了一项敏感性分析，排除了合并症患者，以确保观察到的效应不是由异常值引起的。

✉️ 常见审稿人回复邮件

“The discussion lacks critical analysis and fails to position the study within the broader scientific context. The authors should interpret the significance of the findings and compare them with existing work.”

应对策略：

避免照搬 “结果 ”部分的句子。取而代之的是解释结果的含义，以及这些结果如何与之前的研究保持一致或形成对比。弱示例：“We found that Treatment A improved recovery time by 20%. This result is shown in Table 2.”改进示例：“Treatment A significantly reduced recovery time compared to the control, consistent with the findings of Lee et al. (2021), who observed a similar trend in a younger cohort. This suggests that the intervention may be effective across age groups.”与现有文献比较，例如：Our findings support the meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (2020), which identified early intervention as a key factor in patient recovery. However, unlike previous studies, we observed a greater effect in male participants, which warrants further investigation.诚实地讨论局限性，并提出未来的发展方向。例如：One limitation of our study is the relatively small sample size, which may affect generalizability. However, the consistency of our findings with larger datasets suggests the observed effect is robust.提出未来方向，例如：Future research should explore the long-term effects of Treatment A in diverse populations, particularly in settings with limited healthcare infrastructure.

需要注意的是，见刊后仍然可能存在撤稿的情况发生，例如：一篇《Front Oncol》上的文章由于“实验设计中的错误，导致结论不可靠”，从而撤稿。