问题出来了:我有两个备选方案,其中一个是稍微低一个档次的期刊,也是一类期刊,另外一个再稍微低一些,但是也不错,算是最好的二类。我觉得这两个期刊都是比较可能接受此文章的期刊。
其中一个合作者跟另外一个合作者讨论了一下,给出了如下回复:
The referees in the journals you suggested are likely to be the same or similar to those from JASA, where the paper was rejected. (for example, JBES is the same family as JASA, and JBF's editors/referees for this type of paper also do work for JASA). And the paper does not add a strong reason to prefer this method over the XXXXXX, which is already published.
So the referees/editor in those journals may have a poor opinion of the paper, which will give all of us a bad reputation and make it difficult for us to publish in the future.
JEF might have a different pool of editors/referees who may still appreciate the topic, which is why we decided on JEF.
他提出我的方法没有另外一个顶级期刊上的方法有足够优势。我觉得理由不充分,因为本来就是不同的定义角度。所以他建议投稿JEF。这个期刊偏实证,我的文章一开始出发点是做理论的,我弱化了实证。现在投稿这个期刊感觉很亏,觉得JEF的文章理论创新不够,自己花两三个月就可以投了。而我的文章里更多是理论贡献和创新。
现在是他们都觉得应该投稿JEF,我的导师,某大牛说:“I think that we should follow XXXXXXX's suggestion and if needed modify the paper. If this is not possible, please remove my name from the paper.”
他也提到,可能遇到同样的审稿人,这样会继续保持poor opinion,会影响声誉。这个意思是不是只是一个借口觉得这篇文章不行?麻烦大家给出分析吧,我的老师这句话是什么意思?如果我坚持投以上两个期刊中的一个,会让他们觉得是不是我太固执己见,不尊重他们的意见,毕竟他们都是牛人,到最后如果再被拒稿,这是我的丢脸了?
PS,因为最终我不是打算长期做学术,我的目的是为了发表我的博士阶段的成果,坦白说哪个期刊也没那么重要,只要它可以见人,我觉得它的价值迟早会被发现。但是就是想能尽量好久尽量好吧。