今天下午收到一期刊主编的审稿要求，我30分钟内拒了阿三的文章

　　今天下午收到一期刊主编的审稿要求，我30分钟内拒了阿三的文章。下午收到印度一SCI期刊主编发的审稿邀请，看了看这篇文章觉得自己能审就接受了。先看了一下文章的标题，想知道这个方向做到什么程度了，于是就google了一下，哪知道第一页的第二篇文章就是这群阿三的。。。

这些阿三真的太牛了，去年发表的文章直接改了一个标题和名字就投了这个期刊了，第一作者是一个博士生，二三是副教授，第四作者是通讯作者，一个大学的土木工程系的教授和系主任。文章写作90%相同，10个FIGURE有9个是相同的，两个表一个完全一样一个90%相同，MY GOD, 哥直接被吓到了，见过改投的，但是没有见过这样的。然后三十分钟就给了审稿意见。不知道主编怎么想啊

Dear Professor X,

Thanks for giving me the chance to review the paper. I have to say ---- in my opinion, this manuscript must be rejected. How dare the authors submit this kind of manuscript for consideration. Attached please find my comments and the reasons.

Reviewer Comments: The paper presents an experimental study on compressive behaviour of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) under uniaxial compression, and the authors tried to predict the stress-strain behaviour of UHPC.
General comments:
The critical point of the paper lies in the scientific contribution.
The materials, the characterization protocol as well as majority of the figures and tables are identical to a reference of the same research team, e.g. Ref. A:
Ref. A: xx.

First example: the abstract is very close to Ref. A. only “reactive powder concrete” is revised to “UHPC".
The “Introduction”, “research significance”, …., all are very close to those presented in Ref. A.
Second example:
- figs. 1 and 2 are identical to fig. 3 to 4 in ref.A
- figs. 3b and 4 are identical to fig. 5 to 6 in ref.A
- figs. 5 and 6 are identical to fig. 7 to 8 in ref.A
- fig. 9 is identical to fig. 9 in ref.A
- Table 1 is very close to table 1 in ref.A
- Table 2 is identical to table 2 in ref.A
Sample Text
===有问必答===
赞楼主的认真，这种情况还说这么多，要我直接说两句话，附上相同的文献就完事了。楼主真是有心人，学习了
----
我也审过一个，花了20天，第一次审，每个句子还有参考文献都认真看了。他连最基本的概念都不清楚，还在国际最高级别腐蚀发文章（虽然已经发过2篇），镁合金还有钝化。我的评语not professional
----
2楼2013-02-06 19:31:25
----
。。。普遍现象。。。学术造假，论文抄袭。不过楼主打的好