The editor informed me that the article needs to be revised, and some of the revision requests are outrageous to the extreme. For example, the following paragraph is the plot that needs to be revised:
[Due to some external slander and internal problems, the reputation of China's scientific research circle in public opinion is second only to the national football and entertainment circles. But just like a lot of news about the national football team is actually distorted, there are also a lot of misunderstandings in the Chinese scientific research circle.
True.
In recent years, there have indeed been some news breaking out involving academic misconduct or sexual dealings by academicians.
But from January 2019 to January 2023, the number of academicians who were exposed for academic misconduct or pornographic news in the four years was only four.
And how many academicians are there in China?
1,700 people!
There is a saying that I said a long time ago:
In any matter, it is very unfair to use an individual example to deny a group.
I don’t know how many academicians who devoted themselves to scientific research were inexplicably turned into idiots by AOE. 】
This passage is my original text, and the reason for the review is [Academician National Football Team is negative] - this is the original review sentence.
There are more than fifty similar places.
The editor-in-chief will give me a more detailed answer tomorrow, and I will notify you of the results then.
Once alive, second time mature, it belongs to...
