Whether scientific researchers engaged in basic research can publish papers in SCI indexed journals is a basic indicator of whether they can enter the academic forefront, participate in academic competition on the internationally recognized platform, and make original contributions. So what kind of paper is qualified? This article provides some suggestions for your reference.

Publishing academic papers in international core journals is the responsibility of basic researchers. As a country and as a research group or individual, the number of papers published in high impact factor SCI journals is clearly an objective indicator of the level of basic research. Robert pointed out in the preface of his famous work "How to Write and Publish Scientific Papers" that "the evaluation of a scientist from graduate school is mainly not based on his agility in laboratory operations, nor on his inherent knowledge of broad or narrow research fields, nor on his intelligence and charm, but on his writings. They became famous (or still unknown) for this." He led the American Microbiological Society for 19 years of publishing work and served as the editor in chief of the Journal of Bacteriology. His profound insights are worthy of reflection by colleagues engaged in basic research.

The papers published in international core journals should, in principle, be new observational and experimental facts described for the first time in the international community, concepts and models proposed for the first time, equations established for the first time, as well as new summaries of existing significant observational (experimental) facts and the extraction of new laws. Related to originality, no journal wishes to publish papers that have already been published in other journals, in other languages, or in slightly different forms. Harvey, the editor in chief of the authoritative journal Solar Physics, has specifically mentioned that there have been a few authors who have sent their main results to Astrophysics after they were published in Chinese. He emphasized that this was tolerated in the past, but it is no longer allowed. A recognized principle is that authors cannot send their main results published in reviewed journals in different forms to other journals for further publication. Papers published in international core journals should not only be original, but their results must also be significant, which promotes the development of the discipline. In Harvey's words, "at least one or two other researchers will read this." The significance test of the results is the amount of citations in the paper. Authors should be concerned about the citation of their paper, pay attention to the evaluation of their work by the international academic community, including the aspects of recognition and criticism, and especially pay attention to the different understandings of their published results by peers. This is an important way to improve their research level.

1、 Fully evaluate existing work and reflect the author's academic level

Whether past work has been objectively and fully evaluated is often an important aspect for reviewers and readers to measure the author's academic level and style. Some of our authors are often willing to cite the work of well-known foreign scholars, which has a bit of a Greek flavor, but they do not attach enough importance to the work published by domestic peers. Sometimes, even though it is the first work done by Chinese scholars, they have not received sufficient evaluation from their domestic counterparts. It should be advocated to extensively and appropriately cite the work of domestic peers. However, we should not learn from a few Japanese authors who rarely cite articles outside of Japanese scholars. Some colleagues cited a considerable number of formulas in their papers, but did not list the sources of the formulas, making it difficult for readers to distinguish whether they were developed by the author or cited from the previous work of others. In principle, in addition to the equations and expressions recognized in textbooks, for deductions used for specific purposes, specific conditions, and problems, as long as it is not the author's own work, the source and applicable conditions must be listed; Even if it is the author's own past work, corresponding literature should be listed for readers to refer to when necessary. Based on a thorough evaluation of the author's past work, it is important to clearly point out their original contributions in the current work. This is an expression of the author's responsibility towards science, and it is a clear content that must be written clearly at the beginning of a good academic paper.

2、 Special attention should be paid to the title, abstract, charts, and conclusions of the paper

Every author has experience in reading a large number of papers. The habit for readers to read papers is generally to first browse through the table of contents, and only those who are interested in the topic are willing to turn to relevant papers; For a paper with an interest in a topic, the reader first reads the abstract of the paper; If you are still interested in the abstract, you will then look at the charts in the paper, because the charts often reflect the results of the paper most clearly. After reading the chart, if the reader is still interested, they will continue to read the conclusion of the paper. Usually, only a small number of readers will read the full text of the paper.

The author should be aware that the title of the paper will be read by thousands of readers. Carefully choose every word in the title, using the fewest words to accurately reflect the content of the paper.

3、 Properly handling review comments and rejections

The reviewers of international core journals are mostly authoritative scholars in various fields. The publishing society of magazines often solicits the opinions of editorial boards to select the best review team. Review is unpaid. The work attitude of most reviewers is extremely serious. We should respect the review comments very much, carefully analyze every criticism and suggestion, and revise the paper accordingly. When it comes to opinions that you believe are incorrect, be extremely cautious and answer them seriously, and discuss them with the reviewer in a reasonable and well founded manner. How to deal with papers rejected by magazines is often a challenge for authors. It is necessary to analyze the reasons for rejection here. The first type of rejection is a "complete rejection", and the editor in chief usually expresses an opinion that they never want to see such articles again. Sending such articles again is meaningless. There is a type of article that contains useful data and information, and the editor rejects such articles due to serious flaws in the data or analysis. Authors of this type of article may want to put it aside for now, and wait until broader evidence is found to support or clearer conclusions are reached before sending the revised "new" article to the same journal. The editor in chief usually considers re accepting such articles. In the past two years, at least two reviewers have complained to the author that some Chinese colleagues, after their papers were rejected by one journal, sent the original manuscript to another journal, and they were once again invited to do the review. They are very averse to this. The paper was naturally rejected. When discussing this issue, Thomas, the science editor in chief of The Astrophysics Journal, pointed out that "sending a paper to another journal without modification after being rejected by one journal is a terrible mistake. Usually, reviewers do a serious job of pointing out the problems in the paper and suggesting revisions. If the author ignores these advice, it is a real waste of time and effort. At the same time, sending a bad article is a serious damage to the author's scientific reputation." In fact, the standards and requirements for accepting papers vary greatly among academic journals with different influencing factors. If the rejected paper is not due to errors in the manuscript, but rather lacks importance or innovation, the author can send it to an academic journal with a lower impact factor after carefully considering the opinions of the reviewers and carefully revising the manuscript. It is worth noting that due to knowledge limitations, certain prejudices, and even differences in academic perspectives, reviewers may make errors in their judgment and suggest rejection of the manuscript. How to handle the situation, there are two examples for reference. Recently, a young man's paper was rejected by a magazine. After repeated discussion and verification, we have concluded that the reviewer is incorrect. In order to publish the paper in a timely manner, we suggest that the author politely and seriously reply to the editor in chief, pointing out the errors of the reviewers, and requesting the editor to forward his comments to the reviewers, then withdraw the paper, make necessary improvements, and send it to another journal with a higher impact factor. The paper was immediately accepted and received a good evaluation. In this example, the paper was not sent to another journal without significant revisions. However, the author responsibly requested the editor in chief to forward their comments to the reviewers. In this case, the author should not be restricted or criticized for sending to other magazines. But the premise is to repeatedly verify the results of the paper and have a definite grasp of its correctness. A paper in my group was published in an important journal for two and a half years, mainly because the first reviewer questioned the reliability of vector magnetic field measurement in China and did not agree to publish this paper. Through consulting with authoritative colleagues and repeated reflection, we confirm that the measurements used in our research are fully accurate and reliable. The author spent nearly two years discussing with the reviewers, and not only was the paper published, but also established good relationships with the reviewers and editor in chief. This paper received good international citations after its publication.

4、 Make great efforts to improve English writing skills

English is not our mother tongue, and English writing is the most difficult part of learning English. There are relatively few SCI papers and citations in our country, and besides the limitations of basic research level, language barriers cannot be ignored. Every basic research worker must make improving their English writing ability a daunting task. Here are three successful experiences for reference. Professor Hu Youqiu from the University of Science and Technology of China always copies the English revisions made by the reviewers and the modified parts of his original manuscript separately in a notebook for comparison. Carefully ponder and memorize, gradually improving one's English writing level. His papers sent to international core journals are often referred to as well written by reviewers. The National Solar Observatory of the United States has an internal review system, whose main purpose is to ensure the accuracy of papers, while also having mutual influence and benefits for research. Papers that have not undergone internal review cannot be sent to journals. Senior solar physicists Sara and Martin suggest reading papers that can serve as examples to learn how to organize and write good English. She specifically mentioned the paper by the late renowned astrophysicist Zwaan, which could serve as a model for emulation. After the initial draft of the paper is completed, it is necessary to do a spelling check to avoid simple spelling errors. If you are unsure about your English writing, it is necessary to ask a colleague who is good at English and foreign colleagues to master English. To fundamentally improve the English proficiency of Chinese scholars, we suggest that graduate students must offer English writing courses in writing English. We really need to make a comeback.