各位虫友，我最近投稿一篇到APL，审稿意见如下：
Editor's Comments:
You will need to do a major revision to convince the referee who recommended rejection ta the paper can be published. You will also have ot address the comments of the ohter two reviewers

Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Publish in APL with mandatory revision (minor)
Paper Interesting: Yes
Original Paper: Yes
Sufficient Physics: Yes
Well Organized: N/A
Clear and Error Free: N/A
Conclusions Supported: Yes
Appropriate Title: Yes
Good Abstract: Yes
Clear Figures: No
Satisfactory English: N/A
Adequate References: Yes
OVERALL RATING: Very Good

Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Reject
Paper Interesting: No
Original Paper: No
Sufficient Physics: Yes
Well Organized: No
Clear and Error Free: No
Conclusions Supported: No
Appropriate Title: Yes
Good Abstract: Yes
Clear Figures: No
Satisfactory English: Yes
Adequate References: No
OVERALL RATING: Fair
**************This work does not contain sufficient new science and results to warrant its publication in APL. In addition, the results are not carefully analyzed and some of the results lack scientific rigour. In view of this I reject its publication in APL and suggest its submission to a more specialized journal after major revisions.

2. For Fig.1 and also the following figures, how many samples were tested?
In particular, it is difficult to draw any conclusions for the mechanical properties without testing a large number of samples. Why aren't there any error bars on the
data shown in this manuscript? What is the meaning of the electrical and mechanical data in the absence of error bars?
4. Overall, I see that the authors draw conclusions about an eventual increase in the electromechanical characteristics. How significant are these increases if you take into account variations in samples, errors in the measurements, etc...? It would be also more interesting to analyze the data more carefully rather than only reporting the behaviors seen in each plot.
5. Reference list is not accurate and requires appropriate referencing of the earlier studies contacted by other groups in the field.


Reviewer #3 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Publish in APL with mandatory revision (minor)
Paper Interesting: Yes
Original Paper: Yes
Sufficient Physics: Yes
Well Organized: Yes
Clear and Error Free: Yes
Conclusions Supported: No
Appropriate Title: Yes
Good Abstract: Yes
Clear Figures: Yes
Satisfactory English: Yes
Adequate References: Yes
OVERALL RATING: Very Good

总的来说，审稿人一和三的审稿意见还是很好回复的。关键是这个审稿人二，问题无非是觉着工作不够原创，没啥料；再就是认为数据没用error bar, 可靠性不大。在我看过的很多论文里，不用error bar 的也不在少数，而且我也的确不知道该如何做error bar。

还请给位虫友指教。多谢 返回小木虫查看更多