糟糕的PLOSONE投稿体验2024

本次投稿PLOS ONE是一篇计量实证论文，主题是数字化与企业创新相关。

学术编辑（大同行）建议修改，但staff editor（搞生物的）直接拒稿了——意难平。

大概过程如下：

2024年10月27日，投稿

大概两个星期（具体日期忘记了），开始under review

2025年1月7日，收到邮件通知，学术编辑跑路。“Unfortunately,the Academic Editor originally assigned to handle your submission is nowunavailable.”

2025年1月15日，学术编辑完成分配。“Weare pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been assigned to a newAcademic Editor.”

2025年1月22日，来自staffeditor的拒稿。

注1：通过谷歌学术发现academic editor也是搞经济学的，搞企业家精神方面的。

注2：通过官网发现该Staff editor2024年入职PLOSONE的印度人，搞生物的。

DecisionLetter拒稿信如下：
DearDr. CXX
Thankyou for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, wehave decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publicationand must therefore be rejected.
PLOSOne has been specifically designed for the publication of the results oforiginal research contributing to the base of academic knowledge. Further, formanuscripts to be considered for publication in PLOS ONE, experiments andanalyses must be conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls; methods mustbe described in sufficient detail for others to replicate the analyses; andconclusions must be supported by the results presented(http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication). After carefulconsideration, we feel that the current manuscript does not meet theserequirements. Specifically, both the Academic Editor and the reviewers haveraised major concerns around the contribution, theoretical discussion,methodology and analysis in this manuscript.  Asa result of this, we will be rejecting the manuscript. I am sorry that wecannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate thereasons for this decision.
Kindregards,
AnneshaSil, Ph.D.
Staff Editor
PLOS One   


学术编辑的意见如下

DearDr. CXX;

Thank you for submitting you paper to PLOS-ONE. Based on the reviewers'comments and my own evaluation, I am inviting yourevise and resubmit your paper. Reviewer 2 has identified severalimportant points that I think you should focus on. I agree with reviewer 2 thatthe theoretical discussion needs to be further developed. I also think you needreconsider your measure for the dependent variable.

I wish you the best of luck as you work to revise your paper.