PRB 编辑回信不适合发表，但是我感觉论文比较长，referee好像也没有认真看，还指出Probably there is more in the second part of the paper, however, the message is so diluted that it is hard to extract it.

具体意见如下，请大侠们不吝赐教！

==============================================================
Re: XXXX
Dear Dr. YYY,

The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees. Comments from the report appear below.
These comments suggest that the present manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Physical Review.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX
Associate Editor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Referee -- XXXXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper is nicely written. Nevertheless, I am afraid I do not understand the importance of the message and results. The derivation of the ME is pretty standard and the DB comes directly from the properties of the environment. As far as I understand, this is the recipe shown in the books so I am missing the new information here. The results presented indicate that, as it should be, the populations in the steady state are modified. Probably there is more in the second part of the paper, however, the message is so diluted that it is hard to extract it.

I think that the paper needs a major revision with the new results highlighted. Personally, I do not consider the derivation of the ME one of them (see standard textbook derivation of the ME). 返回小木虫查看更多