一般而言我只要认为我所做的一个学习有充足的创新性理由的话我会将其投稿到一个比较靠谱的杂志上去，我不十分注重影响因子，只要这是个国际性杂志同时发表过在我们这个行当中著名的学习论文就行。我有过在国内投稿时点子被剽窃的惨痛经历，因此只要是重要的我会尽量避免在国内发表。我所谈及的这个杂志的影响因子很高，大致排在中科院的2区，大概是虚荣心所致，很好奇这个知名度那么高的杂志对我的这个学习是什么看法。于是将稿件投出，刚开始还担心了一下子，因为不是native speaker怕不被马上送审，但过了2周左右助理编辑来信说认为稿件达到送审标准了，要安排一个副编辑(AE， Associate editor)，去再审然后再找审稿人去审。之后我足足等了两个多月，我想我有足够的耐心等等也没什么。主编的结论终于下来了，大家可能也猜到了：reject!而且是不能重投的拒稿。被拒稿经历过多次，但这种情况几乎没有，多年的经验使我意识到这很不寻常，因为我可以十分肯定我的学习的重要性，怎么会这么轻易地被拒稿呢？实在想不通，看看评语吧，发现两个审稿人中Reviewer 1主张拒稿，第二个审稿人给出较好的评价认为重要、有趣是大修。但第一审稿人颇为严厉的全面否定了我的学习，我发现他所提出的三点主要理由非但没有一个是成立的，而且不足对事物的基本认知。这么一个大牌杂志怎么会找这么一个科学素养如此之低的人来做审稿人呢？我不禁瞥了一下拒稿信的抄送地址，是两个，一个是中科院某单位的官方地址，一个是此单位的看似熟悉的个人地址，大概明白了其中奥妙吧？这个AE大概想让主编把抄送地址写给单位，但谁成想主编那么实诚，顺便把他的地址也写上了。我于是写信给主编，具体如下：
Dear Chief editor，
I have received this decision message. The reject is not surprised， but I don't think that it is resonable， especially the comments from Reviewer 1. All of three reasons he proposed were totally wrong. I have provided fully explanations why our results were different from previous study and how our results are reasonable and significantly important. It was very clear. We spent more than three years to carefully investigate this one， but he could deny our study in this way so easilly. I don't know why he confounds right with wrong.
On the other hand， I found the editor who handled our manuscript may be Dr. Z1. We have serious academic conflict in the view point of Z2P theory that proposed by Z2. Attached was our debate paper in Z3 Journal in 2016.
Dr. Z1 has ever publised quite number of papers supporting Z2P theory. So， I think that this decision would not be fair to our study. Could you please reconsider our manuscript? I can provide the details about why and how the Reviewer 1 was wrong. Thank you. Sincerely yours，
Dear Chief Editor
I have read the comments of the Reviewer 3 and think it is much more professional than the Reviewer 1， which will be useful for the revising. Thank you.
However， I don't understand why you still let the AE select reviewer for our paper once again. You said that the AE’s handling of the paper was transparent and consistent with the agreed practice of the journal. I don't think so. You have not denied that Dr. Z1 deliberately selected Z2 as the Reviewer 1 who has serious conflict with me， which you did not know it before. So， it was not transparent to you and me when the AE finished his first opinion review. This behavior (you call it serious matter) directly resulted in the occurrence of unfair review. How can I think it consistent with agreed practice of your journal? I said I do not have a position saying something about your internal affairs. But as an author， I guess that the AE may have done such thing more than once， which was what I said If you find one blackbeetle there， a lot must exist. Dr. Z1 is not suitable for this AE.
On the other hand， the Reviewer 3 think that our paper is interesting and important issue although he pointed out some errors. I think it is not too hard to solve them. Normally， the paper should be encouraged resubmission as I have the experiences of an editor. However， your decision implies impossible. It is still not fair. I sincerely hope that you could change your mind. I am looking forward to hearing your reply.
Dear Dr Wang，
Thankyou for your response， copied below. I can confirm that Reviewer 3 was selected by the two co-Chief Editors， L1 and myself， as a trusted independent reviewer.
The reasons for rejection of this paper are based on its scientific weaknesses， and the poor quality of the presentation. This conclusion was reached on consideration of the first two reviews， and confirmed by the third. There is no evidence of any personal bias in this process.
This journal respects the anonymity of its reviewers， and therefore we will not engage in any discussion of their identity.
I am sorry about your disappointment with this submission. I hope that if you address the scientific and stylistic criticisms of the reviewers， you will have success with the paper in future with another journal.
Dear Chief Editor，
I am still confused by your words. If the Reviewer 3 was selected by your two Chief editors as you said now， why did you write down: ??-17-0027 Secondary AE opinion review in front of the comments by Reviewer 3? To my understanding， the two statements were obviously addressing opposite meanings. Am I wrong due to the poor quality of the presentation of English?
As a matter of fact， you owe us a detailed explanation of the investigation.
You said There is no evidence of any personal bias in this process. No， I have enough evedences to prove the personal bias in the process as mentioned before.
You said This journal respects the anonymity of its reviewers， and therefore we will not engage in any discussion of their identity. But how about respecting the science and the victim whose study is obvious valuable? I think that a scientific journal should pay more respect to science.
Actually， both you and me know their identity. It is not a secret. Dr. Z1 is the AE and Reviewer 1 is Z2! Thus， the first review became flawed and invalid. In addition， the Reviewer 2 did not give a rejection. Your decision only followed the Reviewer 1's suggestion.
What you did to me was nothing but covering the flaws. Can you even give me one reason that you did not support the scientific misconduction? Why didn't you let AE take the responsibility for it? The AE should appoloogize for it.
Please note that I don't give up my rights.
Dear Chief Editor，
I think that you are not going to reply to my two letters I sent you a week ago. It is OK since I may not explain the meaning very clearly. I will not complain that you have given the rejection again as well.
What I want to say is that you cannot just fool us like this and then walk away. This is not correct although I understand that you just want to maintain the authority of the editors of this journal. I'd like to list the reasons why you were not right: (1)You cannot hide the fact， i.e. the AE， Z1 abused his power because of his personal selfishness; (2)The authority of a journal should not be maintained by hiding something important. On the contrary， people would more respect it by making its more transparent. Otherwise， the respect would become its opposite.
As for this case， don't you think that Dr. Z1 should explain it or apologize to me? It is obviously his fault and you shouldn't take whole responsibility instead of him. Please pass this message to him. I belive that he has the courage to talk about this with me as a responsible editor， or as a man. If so， I would consider to forgive.
P.S. Please also pass this message to another Chief Editor， Thanks.
Dear Dr Wang，
Thankyou for your email.
To repeat my earlier response on this matter， my inquiry into the review
and decision on your paper has assured me that the process was followed
correctly and without bias.
I have indeed consulted my Co-Chief Editor at every stage in this inquiry.
I have also informed the Chair of the Journals Committee of the outcome，
and given her a summary of the details. Professor Z1 has also been
informed of the outcome of the inquiry.
I understand that you are disappointed with the decision on your paper. I
hope that you will be able to revise the paper and find better success
with another journal.
I do not intend to engage in further discussion on this case.
Dear Dr. ，
Thank you for your quick reply and passing my message to related editors.
You didn't understand why I was so disappointed with this matter. I don't care if the decision was reject or not as long as it makes sense. I can revise it well according to the valuable suggestions from high level reviewers. I believe the paper evenllually being published in some good journal. This is why I prefer to submiting a paper I think important to a reliable journal like your journal. However， the AE's actions ruined it all. It is even more difficult to accept that the AE may have sent our paper to a person who has committed the serious scientific misconduct I found. It was really an insult to me! Do you understand this?
I appreciate you to help me to find the Reviewer 3 who addressed some good suggestions for us. I understand all of your actions with this letter.
By the way， I think that you have passed my message to Dr. Z1. I am waiting for his explanation or apology. He may bear serious consequences without the explanation.