国内学术界为了提高国内SCI刊物的世界地位，在中科院分区方面下足够功夫，很多原本默默无闻的刊物，一跃成为分区较高的刊物。但是，分区虽然提高了，但是审稿队伍有些刊物不能保证，有些投稿硬是拉了一些业余的选手去参评，有些人本着自己的思维习惯和学科特点，去非议别人不同领域的研究。问题多多。我举一个例子。
近来投了一个国内林学类的SCI刊物，说老实话，这个刊物口碑普遍较低，但是因为收费较少，对于经费短缺我们团队而言，还是比较理想的。但是十分遗憾，刚刚收到了一个rejection，但拒稿的理由无外乎又是一个搞生态的去评议一篇偏植物学的论文，动不动就是环境影响如何？而国内应用生态学界近年来普遍收到勒让德的那本数值生态学的影响，把里边的几种分析方法视为经典（其实只是几种分析方法罢了，且是假设环境影响呈现多元线性或者可以转化为多元线性的非线性），方法本身问题很多，复杂一点了，像广义加法模型，很多人又不太会，所以借助R软件包，一些人膨胀起来了。其实，水平就那点，我们站在另外一侧，看得非常清晰。
我和国外的一个叶片研究领域的权威专家共同设计了一个叶片实验，主要考察幼苗和成熟叶片生长不同的策略。论文分析都是经典的RMA，数据采集样本量也很大，结论稳健性相对较高。结果，感觉是，秀才遇到兵，有理说不清了。我只好做了如下回复。
>Reviewers" comments:
>
>Reviewer #1: This manuscript attempts to elucidate the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area between spring and summer for two deciduous tree species. I think this research has certain innovations (although not enough). Further, I think that the topic content of this manuscript is also suitable for the international audiences of JFR. However, several issues need to be addressed adequately. Hence, I strongly recommend to reject this manuscript for publication.
>
>Specific comments are listed as following:
>Abstract section: The content is too long. Please highlight the core content.
>Line 46-51: Species difference? The driving mechanism?
>Line 85: Why not determine the autumn leaf senescence in this study?
>Introduction section: The contents need to be improved greatly. Please optimize the contents. Pay attention to the logic of the contents. The core question of this manuscript did not present well currently, especially the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area as well as the influencing factors and the possible mechanisms.
>Line 133: Why choose these two plants?
>Line 134: The selected plant individuals are the same for the two samplings? The same is true for leaf position?
>Line 134: How to exclude the influence of environmental conditions between the two samplings (e.g., light, rainfall, and temperature, etc.)?
>Line 136-137: Adult trees?
>Line 138-139: Have you chosen each orientation? Or only the direction to the sun?
>Line 159: Please refer to the leaf shape index (i.e., the ratio of length to width). Please see line 268.
>Results section: Please add the values of statistical analysis in the appropriate places throughout this section. Specifically, a significant level of results should be added. Some of the data were not analyzed for significance. Without statistical analysis, the results were far less credible.
>Results section: Delete the discussion contents in this section. Or moved to the discussion section.
>How about the influence of leaf position?
>How about the influence of leaf thickness?
>Which environmental factors have the greatest impact on the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area?
>How to evaluate the direct and indirect influence of environmental factors and biological factors on the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area?
>How to estimate the contribution intensity of the main leaf indices to the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area?
>Discussion section: The mechanism is not well described currently.
>There has been a lot of researches on this topic, including some meta-analysis. The innovation of this study seems to be insufficient.
>References in the text: Arranged according to their publication year. Additionally, please check the consistency of the citation format of the references in the text.
>It is recommended to remove the old references. Please refer to the latest references.
>Fig 2: MEAN and SD or SE? n=?
>Figs 3-6: Only the linear relationship?
>It is recommended to run principal component analysis or multiple regression analysis or path analysis.
>As a non-native English speaker, I didn"t evaluate the language of this manuscript.
>
>
>Reviewer #2: The manuscript (XXX-D-20-00308) reported the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area between spring and summer for two deciduous tree species. The manuscript was generally well written. However, I think the data and thus the ecological significance were relative weak. My major concerns are: (1) The significance of the seasonal change of the scaling relationships of leaf biomass versus surface area was weakly addressed. Although there were some evidences supporting the diminishing returns within species, this study did not measure light capture and gas exchange rate. The authors only reported the differences between spring and summer, and most of the results were common knowledge. For example, these were summarized in the background of the Abstract. Therefore, the current data is poorly linked to the leaf function. I recommend the author considering to add the new data, such as leaf nitrogen per leaf area etc. (2) The Abstract was not well
>written. The background is too long. (3) The significance of Figure 3 was too weak. Maybe, the authors can consider the leaf water content or leaf dry mater content. (4) The significance of Figure 4 was somewhat similar to that of Figure 5. (5) The manuscript was over cited, more than 70 references are too much for a simple research paper. Based on these reasons, I am afraid that the manuscript will find a better home at a different journal. But I hope my comments will help the authors improve the manuscript.
>
Dear Editor,
Oh, very nice comments. Although I cannot understand how a botanical manuscript was commented by an ecological "expert" who seems to be keen to ask how environmental factors have affected leaf scaling. Yes, when I am having my breakfast, I must consider how temperatures affect my appetite; when I am taking a shit, I have to consider whether climate change can affect the speed of shitting. I must thank them for their wonderful commments. I decide not to take each of those comments as a response in future submission to another journal. That is so funny that a scaling relaitonship between leaf dry mass and surface, which has been confirmed by a lot of previous studies internationally, was recommened to be replaced by the principal component analysis or multiple regression analysis or path analysis, as suggested by Reviewer #1. Maybe she/he wants to change the "scaling" relationship by her/his subjective guess. Of course, I must thank them for spending much time in reviewing our manuscript for free.
Yes, it is really an enough excuse to reject a ms just because of too many cited references for Reviewer #2. Very nice, as well.
Good luck to your reviewers. They can go on hunning（混） in Chinese academic circles without knowing what other scientists are doing.
Peijian
