求助各位：大修，审稿人让补充实验，补充不了会被拒吗？
一个审稿人是小修后发表，这个让补充实验，如下，如果我补充不了，拒稿概率多大啊，请教各位前辈！！！
Reviewer #1 (Technical Comments to the Author):
This manuscript proposed a design of graphene-ring resonator system, which can serve as a tunable optical analog to electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT). The relationship between the EIT-like effect and the Fermi level, the bias voltages were investigated. However, it seems still too premature to publish the present manuscript. More experiments are needed to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The following points need to be considered:
1) Graphene films serve as important components in as-designed devices. However, there are very few characterizations on graphene samples themselves besides one Raman spectrum. The authors are suggested to add more characterizations on as-used graphene samples. For examples, the thicknesses/layer numbers, crystallinity, grain sizes, etc.
2) Will the layer numbers of graphene affect the performance of the devices? The authors are suggested to carry out more experiments to clarify this concern. That is, devices with different graphene layers should be assembled and evaluated.
3) The denotations should be kept consistent in the whole manuscript to avoid confusions. For example, in Page 4, “tg” was used to denote the thickness of the Al2O3 between the two graphene layers. However, in Page 5, the same “tg” was used to denote the thickness of graphene layer.
4) The authors should improve the figure captions to make them more self-evident. For example, there are no any texts to explain the inset of Fig. 1e.
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
大致看了一下审稿意见，感觉补充实验也不难啊
石墨烯的表征从拉曼就可以看出来啊，而且我还有SEM的照片，我这个是大片的膜，不是碎状石墨烯，怎么看结晶�
，
我才知道scientific report出事了，我这个就是这个，咋办啊，撤稿吗？
如果限于条件不能补充实验，可以直接说明情况，表示会在以后的研究中创造条件完成实验。如果有条件做但不想做，就要说明不需要补充实验的原因，最好能够找到权威文献支持自己的观点，或者类似的实验数据。
SR 最近有报道新闻。
那就好好补，补了才有希望，加油！