当前位置: 首页 > 论文投稿 >怎么对付两个审稿人?其中一个严重否定

怎么对付两个审稿人?其中一个严重否定

作者 wyjjf
来源: 小木虫 300 6 举报帖子
+关注

We now have referees' comments on the above paper.  I am pleased to tell you that the work is of interest, but regret to say that the paper is not considered suitable in its present form for publication in S*** T**** R****.  The reasons are detailed in the comments below.      

You will see that a number of general and specific points are mentioned which necessitate extensive rewriting of the paper.      

【这个不咋懂】 ????? ??????????
Please consider how you wish to proceed. If you are able to revise the paper extensively, to deal in full with all the points mentioned, we shall be willing to consider the position further.   

If you do decide to submit a revised version of the paper, go to https://********


Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
【第一个审稿人好像完全否定了吧,该怎么说服他???????????????】
Reviewer #1: The paper considers the * * * *, possibly with consideration of ****.
While I can understand the interest in such analyses in rare cases the problem can be solved with standard commercial software and does not fit the high standards of a research journal such as S**** T**** R****.

【第2个审稿人好像问题不大了吧???????????????】
Reviewer #2: Please elaborate on the points raised by the manuscript rating questions and any further commments that the author/s need to address in this box.
1.        This article documents h**** a**** of ***** ***** of * ***** *****.【和我原文题目不同,就是修改成这个目??????????????????????】
2.        At some places, the spelling and punctuation are incorrect. For example, generally delete the comma after the word "that" (e.g., page2, line30) and "which" (e.g., page 7, line 60), and do you mean "bridge" when you write "breach" (page 15, line 44; page 17, line 40). Run a spell and grammar check.
3.        Define all abbreviations, such as *** and SPH.
4.        Follow accepted convention when citing and listing references, e.g., last name, first name initials, title, where published, year, and page numbers. (Put a period after "al&quot
5.        On page 5, line27, the word "Method" is more appropriate than the word "Methodology." (Methodology means the study of methods.)
6.        Page 6, line 46: insert the word "is" after the word "tank."
7.        Page 9, line 52: define flow coefficient, explain how to obtain its value, and discuss its influence. 返回小木虫查看更多

今日热帖
  • 精华评论
  • crazydr

    用实例说服他,用相关的参考文献等等应该都可以的

  • paperhunter

    楼主需要用事实说话,找几篇情况差不多的文献,证明自己所做的研究成果足以在所投期刊发表。此外,责编也比较认可楼主的文章,回答要言之有据,令人信服,修改到位,文章被接收的希望还是很大的。

  • a84361345

    我的审稿意见跟你相似度极高  且编辑的回复基本一模一样   我的已经接受了   加油好好改   你这篇文章希望很大

  • peterflyer

    对第一个完全否定你工作意义的审稿人,你可以说:虽然目前的标准软件可能会解决这个问题,但我想,如果能从另外完全不同的角度分析和着手解决这个问题,则应该是一个非常不错的值得的尝试。
    对第二个审稿人想更改文章标题的论点,楼主更应谨慎,楼主要仔细分析自己文章的工作,使用最恰如其分的题目并给出充分理由。

猜你喜欢