最近,我收到一封作者来信,他说:“在投稿的规矩上,我一般遵循报纸一个月不见用,即另投;杂志(月刊)两个月不见回音,即另作处理这个‘常规’”。他征求我这位当编辑的意见,问这“不知是否可以?”就我个人来说,是完全赞同他的这个投稿“规矩”的。因为,这样做至少会有三点好处。一是能使作者多点投稿的自主权。“一稿两投”不好,但一稿一投后,石沉大海,杳无音讯,就好吗?作者辛辛苦苦的劳动,被不明不白地泡了汤,多么可惜,多么使人寒心。如果有了这么个“规矩”,作者就多了一条活路,不必翘首待望,吊死在一棵树上。尤其对那些初出茅庐,对自己稿件很有自信心,但还缺乏知名度的作者来说,因为有了这么个投稿“规矩”,可以不受“一稿两投”的约束,或不因由编辑部内部不能言明的种种“原因”而遭到白白地耽搁、“枪毙”,而增加新的希望,稿件有可能“死”里回“生”,被别的报刊选用。如果有这种可能性,为什么不给作者这种投稿自主权,而定得按“一稿”不能“两投” Recently, I received a letter from the author. He said: “In terms of submission, I usually follow the newspaper for one month and I do not see it, that is, the other vote. There is no reply within two months from the magazine (monthly) ’”. He solicited my opinion as an editor and asked if “I do not know whether it is possible?” For me personally, I fully agree with his “submission”. Because there are at least three benefits to doing this. One is that the author can autonomously contribute more. “A manuscript two cast” is not good, but after a manuscript has been voted on, nothing can be said about the author. The painstaking work of the author has been unknowingly brewed, what a pity and how chilling it is. If there is such a “rule”, the author has a more lively way, do not have to wait and see, hanged in a tree. Especially for those fledgling, very confident about their own manuscripts, but also the lack of visibility of the author, because of such a contribution “rules”, you can not be “a draft two cast” constraints, or not by editorial department internal Unspeakable “causes”, they were left in vain and “shot down”, adding new hope that the manuscripts may have to “go back to life” in “death” and be chosen by other newspapers and periodicals. If there is such a possibility, why not give the author the autonomy for posting, and is scheduled to press “a draft” can not “vote”