eLetters are brief online comments that can be submitted in response to papers or news stories published in Science. eLetters are submitted on the Science website, evaluated, and posted with the article if accepted. Authors are identified and must agree to our terms and conditions. https://www.science.org/content/page/science-information-authors
eLetters are brief online comments that can be submitted in response to papers or news stories published in Science. eLetters are submitted on the Science website, evaluated, and posted with the article if accepted. Authors are identified and must agree to our terms and conditions. https://www.science.org/content/page/science-information-authors 金银岛 发表于 2023-01-27 11:08
看来你的发现比较重要（至少对原论文是致命的），应该发 technical comments，类似于 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay8060 Technical Comments (up to 1000 words, 2 figures or tables, 15 references, and no supplementary materials) are published online and critique the core conclusions and/or methodology of research published in Science within the previous 3 months. The abstract (60 words or less) will be included in the Letters section of the print edition. Technical Comments should not present new data or other previously unpublished work nor be based on new findings/concepts that would not have been accessible to the authors when the paper was written. Specialized comments on non-technical aspects of a paper should be submitted as eLetters. In the case of rapidly developing research fields (such as COVID-19), Technical Comment submissions may be directed to eLetters to allow a faster exchange of ideas, at the editors’ discretion. Authors of Technical Comments should contact the authors of the paper before submitting their manuscript, and should submit to Science the relevant correspondence. Technical Comments that are accepted will be posted online along with a formal reply from the authors of the original paper.
看来你的发现比较重要（至少对原论文是致命的），应该发 technical comments，类似于 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay8060 Technical Comments (up to 1000 words, 2 figures or tables, 15 references, and no supplementary materials) are published online and critique the core conclusions and/or methodology of research published in Science within the previous 3 months. The abstract (60 words or less) will be included in the Letters section of the print edition. Technical Comments should not present new data or other previously unpublished work nor be based on new findings/concepts that would not have been accessible to the authors when the paper was written. Specialized comments on non-technical aspects of a paper should be submitted as eLetters. In the case of rapidly developing research fields (such as COVID-19), Technical Comment submissions may be directed to eLetters to allow a faster exchange of ideas, at the editors’ discretion. Authors of Technical Comments should contact the authors of the paper before submitting their manuscript, and should submit to Science the relevant correspondence. Technical Comments that are accepted will be posted online along with a formal reply from the authors of the original paper.
纠正这个错误后，由数据和数据分析，得出的结论就不那么重要的。甚至根本就没有意义。
请问能投一篇稿子吗？ 稿子给出新的源代码，和新的结论。 同时强调为什么原先的源代码是致命错误。
问题是：这个投稿可行吗？ 另外，新的结论是“没有任何有意义的结论可以从这个数据中发现。” 这样的新的结论能被reviewers接受吗？
https://www.science.org/content/page/science-information-authors
谢谢！ 请问这个算是一篇稿子吗？ 被pubmed收录吗？有PMID吗？
science的主编会要求原作者撤稿吗？ 因为这是巨大的错误。
从意义巨大的结论，一下子变成 “毫无意义的结论”
另外，发表comment，可以被pubmed收录吗？有单独的PMID吗？ 算是一篇science论文吗？
如果不算，发表这样的comment，除了得罪原作者，有何意义呢？
看来你的发现比较重要（至少对原论文是致命的），应该发 technical comments，类似于 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay8060
Technical Comments (up to 1000 words, 2 figures or tables, 15 references, and no supplementary materials) are published online and critique the core conclusions and/or methodology of research published in Science within the previous 3 months. The abstract (60 words or less) will be included in the Letters section of the print edition. Technical Comments should not present new data or other previously unpublished work nor be based on new findings/concepts that would not have been accessible to the authors when the paper was written. Specialized comments on non-technical aspects of a paper should be submitted as eLetters. In the case of rapidly developing research fields (such as COVID-19), Technical Comment submissions may be directed to eLetters to allow a faster exchange of ideas, at the editors’ discretion. Authors of Technical Comments should contact the authors of the paper before submitting their manuscript, and should submit to Science the relevant correspondence. Technical Comments that are accepted will be posted online along with a formal reply from the authors of the original paper.
可以让很多研究者避免走弯路，浪费大量时间经费，学术界还是要说真话，很多人会感谢你的
我前面提到的那个technical comments在pubmed找到了，有pmid的
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31624185/
算 有
不能写成 新的结论是“没有任何有意义的结论可以从这个数据中发现。 要说原作者overestimate了。。。的意义
嗯， 跟原作者讨论一下比较靠谱。
有单独的PMID， 以前有同事这么做，然后每次做报告，还把自己的这个comment 论文引用了。
自信一点，人做的东西就是有可能会出错，有什么奇怪的。 正常的学术讨论，直接发给编辑就行，不要私下联系作者。 你自己把这个东西写出来的过程，也会帮助你思考。编辑会联系作者回复的。
多谢！
楼上各位认真回复的朋友，如果你们搜索一下LZ之前在本版提的一些问题，那么我相信你们的回帖会大不一样🤣
太谢谢了！
请问nature也有类似于science的eletter 和science的technical comments吗？
eletter和technical comments相比，哪个impact factor更高？又看了一遍你贴的介绍。这个eletter是non-technical comments。所以technical comments应该影响度更高。
还有个马甲
对，technical comments级别更高。
你又发现nature上的论文也有错误？
你的理解肯定没有错误？
是的。请问nature是投什么类型的文章吗？有eletter或者technical comments吗？
是啊。从一个菜鸟，一步步走到今天，很不容易。 多谢大师们的帮助。
真的么? 现在的数据不都是cherry pick 把不符合结论的数据拿掉么?
学校出产的 可信的太少 75% 不可信?
一般发表一篇文章，组内改过，投稿前也会给系里关系好的教授看看，杂志接收后发表前也有2轮review。 👍楼主的自信，可以试试。
中国很多人就是这么“发”science的