| 查看: 6492 | 回复: 32 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
海宝心声木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
求助，MDPI旗下论文被reject，但一直还没收到邮件已有13人参与
|
||
|
论文pending editor1天 under review 23天（7天的时候，有一个审稿人的意见返回来了，给的差差评） 然后昨天，23天的时候，我看系统，status是pending editor decision 点开view之后，里面有个editor decision，写的是： Submission to First Decision (Days) 23 Editor Decision Decision Reject and decline resubmission Decision Date 4 December 2019 Review Report Reviewer 1 Review Report (Round 1) 只有一个审稿人，给的审稿意见很差： Comments and Suggestions for Authors Although the implementation of the these kind of numerical models might be helpful for the fatigue analysis of such structures under study, the novelty by the authors is not given clearly. In addition, the quality of presentation must be improved. 这种情况，我该怎么办呀？ 想申诉一下，陈述一下自己的创新性，建议编辑再找两个审稿人，然后我推荐几个审稿人，然后再附上润色公司的润色证明。 各位觉得怎么样？谢谢大家了。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
with editor 两个月了，什么原因？
已经有15人回复
-
博士白读了
已经有48人回复
-
申博求助
已经有11人回复
-
环肽的合成
已经有4人回复
-
基金开始函评了吗？
已经有14人回复
-
研二光催化6月底四篇二区什么水平
已经有14人回复
-
两类问题算是白选了~
已经有12人回复
-
博士论文被抄袭
已经有42人回复
-
25年博士申请
已经有11人回复
-
学硕专硕
已经有4人回复
26楼2019-12-05 21:28:28
海宝心声
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4115.8
- 散金: 1988
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 2713
- 在线: 249.2小时
- 虫号: 3761577
- 注册: 2015-03-24
- 专业: 结构工程
2楼2019-12-05 07:46:29
材料小蚂蚁
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 953.8
- 散金: 501
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 447
- 在线: 24.3小时
- 虫号: 16974693
- 注册: 2019-08-29
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
3楼2019-12-05 07:47:13
海宝心声
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4115.8
- 散金: 1988
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 2713
- 在线: 249.2小时
- 虫号: 3761577
- 注册: 2015-03-24
- 专业: 结构工程
|
review report form english language and style ( ) extensive editing of english language and style required (x) moderate english changes required ( ) english language and style are fine/minor spell check required ( ) i don't feel qualified to judge about the english language and style does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? yes can be improved must be improved not applicable ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) is the research design appropriate? yes can be improved must be improved not applicable ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) are the methods adequately described? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) are the results clearly presented? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) are the conclusions supported by the results? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) comments and suggestions for authors although the implementation of the these kind of numerical models might be helpful for the fatigue analysis of such structures under study, the novelty by the authors is not given clearly. in addition, the quality of presentation must be improved. submission date 11 november 2019 date of this review 18 nov 2019 23:09:55 |
4楼2019-12-05 07:47:28
5