当前位置: 首页 > 论文投稿 >第一篇LPL的论文,审稿人意见我看不懂要怎么修改,求帮忙分析一下

第一篇LPL的论文,审稿人意见我看不懂要怎么修改,求帮忙分析一下

作者 wangjing140
来源: 小木虫 250 5 举报帖子
+关注

1. Scientific soundness of the work and lack of serious scientific
mistakes (1—9) 6
2. Scientific novelty and significance of the presented results (1—9) 4
3. Necessity of a quick publication (1—9) 4
4. General interest for wide readers (1—9) 5
5. Quality of the presentation (1-9) 5
6. Quality of the English (1-3 - not acceptable, 4-6 - needs minor
revision, 7-9 – ok) 7
7. Recommendations: c) serious revision is required
                                        d) redirect to Laser Physics as
not requiring urgent publication

1. The research topic on “electromagnetic multi-Gaussian Schell model in
atmospheric turbulence” has been reported in other published article,
for example in the following reference [1], but the authors did not
mention in the text, also did not cite. The authors should elaborate on
their differences. 返回小木虫查看更多

今日热帖
  • 精华评论
  • wangjing140

    我论文一共9页,每条问题后面跟的是我有问题的那一页吗?但第六条英语那条我有问题的怎么是7呢?不是ok吗?我这个修改了能发表吗?

  • wangjing140

    各位大神帮个忙吧!!!!!脑子现在都蒙圈了,编辑的回复如下:帮个忙吧
    The independent referees of your article entitled "Spreading of a
    tunable random electromagnetic beam in turbulent atmosphere" have
    already looked through your manuscript. Both of them have written to me
    that in their opinion your the article should be revised and reworked in
    order to be published.
    Please see their remarks below.

    Please upload your reworked article on your Personal Page in in the
    Submission System at our website as soon as possible.
    Please, upload together with the revised version your answers to the
    criticism and the description of made changes in the text.

    After that I will forward your updated article to your referees for
    further reviewing process.

    Sincerely,
    Alexander Yevseyev
    Laser Physics Letters Staff Editor

    *************************************************************************
    1. Scientific soundness of the work and lack of serious scientific
    mistakes (1—9) 6
    2. Scientific novelty and significance of the presented results (1—9) 4
    3. Necessity of a quick publication (1—9) 4
    4. General interest for wide readers (1—9) 5
    5. Quality of the presentation (1-9) 5
    6. Quality of the English (1-3 - not acceptable, 4-6 - needs minor
    revision, 7-9 – ok) 7
    7. Recommendations: c) serious revision is required
                                            d) redirect to Laser Physics as
    not requiring urgent publication

    1. The research topic on “electromagnetic multi-Gaussian Schell model in
    atmospheric turbulence” has been reported in other published article,
    for example in the following reference [1], but the authors did not
    mention in the text, also did not cite. The authors should elaborate on
    their differences.

    [1] G. Wu, H. Zhou, and T. Zhao, “Propagation properties of
    electromagnetic multi-Gaussian Schell model beams propagating through
    atmospheric turbulence,” Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 64(6),
    826-831 (2014),

  • ly025

    前面的1-7应该是杂志要求的打分项,分数区间1-9,括号后面的是你的文章得分。
    审稿意见应该不止这一条吧,根据意见修改,按编辑说的提交就是了。

  • sunnyboy555

    你就按照他的意见也能找到对应的地方啊,这有什么纠结

猜你喜欢
下载小木虫APP
与700万科研达人随时交流
  • 二维码
  • IOS
  • 安卓