Professional response to "娃最近科研的经历，请教一下有相关经验的家长们怎么跟娃沟通"

来源: burnwoodhot 于 2023-03-29 18:55:49 [档案] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：次 (3690 bytes)

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) "学术界有些人也是靠“人有多大胆，地有多大产”来发成果"-- 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) "各位有经验的家长请问怎么handle"-- the mentors/professors are the right people to deal with this.

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

娃的一篇论文近期被某国际学术会议发回来要求修改。一共5个reviewers，其中一个strong accept, 一个 accept，三个 revise and resubmit。其中有一个提到娃没有把他的方法跟最新的好方法比较，同时建议了几个state-of-art 的相关研究。因为交稿时间比较紧，娃只能硬着头皮读推荐的论文，同时上网找现成的代码。运气好还真找到原作者的代码，只要简单跟他的代码对接一下就能跑。结果让人大跌眼镜，那些算法好是好，比如说精确度能比娃的精确度高个0.X% 这样，但运行时间是娃的几十倍甚至上百倍。娃跟我抱怨的时候，我还不太相信。娃就给我看了下结果。又尝试了在严格的同样运行时间下跑，结果那些算法反而精确度比娃的差蛮多。看那些论文都吹得天花乱坠的，理论推导和实验数据也不错，还发表在不错的期刊上，没想到会这样。娃因此挺困惑。我能怎么说，难道说或许学术界有些人也是靠“人有多大胆，地有多大产”来发成果？不想让娃有这样负面的印象，觉得太打击他的科研积极性了。各位有经验的家长请问怎么handle?