第一次投稿，RSC Advances 两个审稿人一个据稿，一个大修，编辑给了大修的意见

作者 freedom2516: 来源: 小木虫 3550 71 举报帖子

本人前段时间自己写了篇通讯文章，老板看了说写的还可以，但是没有时间帮我修改还有投稿，自己投稿RSC Advances，第一次投稿，昨天编辑给了审稿意见，两个审稿人，一个大修，一个据稿，编辑给了大修的意见，不知道还有没有希望！
下面是编辑回信还有审稿人的意见
TITLE: Facile Route to Synthesize and morphology control of Anionic Waterborne Polyurethane Hollow Microspheres via Self-Crosslinking Reaction
Thank you for your submission to RSC Advances, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below.
I have carefully evaluated your manuscript and the reviewers’ reports, and the reports indicate that major revisions are necessary.
Please submit a revised manuscript which addresses all of the reviewers’ comments. Further peer review of your revised manuscript may be needed. When you submit your revised manuscript please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made. Full details of the files you need to submit are listed at the end of this email.

Referee: 1

Recommendation: Major revisions

Comments:
In this paper, a kind of hollow microspheres were prepared by self-crosslinking reaction of waterborne polyurethane (WPU). There are some questions as following:
1) The reaction mechanism of forming hollow microspheres was not clear. It is suggested that author give this reaction mechanism.
2) The diameter of hollow microspheres is not uniform. Could you find a method to control uniform diameter?
3) Which kind of regions that the hollow microspheres could be applied ?

Additional Questions:
Does the work significantly advance the understanding or development in this field? : No

Are the conclusions of the work convincing and sufficiently supported by experimental evidence?: Yes

Is the experimental section sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work?: No

Are the reported claims adequately discussed in the context of the literature?: Yes

Are the number of tables and figures in the manuscript appropriate and clear?: No

Referee: 2

Recommendation: Reject

Comments:
Manuscript by Guo et al. describes the preparation of polyurethane hollow microsphere by self-cross linking process which is different from the process published by Li et al for waterborne hollow PU microspheres. The manuscript is well written and describes the research well. I have following suggestions and concerns for the current work:
1. The TEM and SEM images in Figure 1 indicates different size of microspheres. It seems this process doesn’t produce uniform microspheres which is the critical point in this area of research. How do authors compare these results from literature in term of advancement of process?
2. What is the average size of holes in hollow microspheres? It seems holes are not clearly visible from the images. How do you compare holes in your microspheres with similar standing literature ?
3. Figure 3 shows OM images for different carboxyl concentrations which doesn’t say anything. Could you please provide high magnification images to demonstrate that microspheres are not fusing with each other. Please also make sure statics is correct with respect to diameter of polymer microspheres.

Additional Questions:
Does the work significantly advance the understanding or development in this field? : No

Are the conclusions of the work convincing and sufficiently supported by experimental evidence?: Yes

Is the experimental section sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work?: Yes

Are the reported claims adequately discussed in the context of the literature?: No

Are the number of tables and figures in the manuscript appropriate and clear?: Yes
前辈们给分析一下返回小木虫查看更多

今日热帖