回信如下：
Dear Dr. xx,

Reviewers' comments on your paper referenced above have now been received. You will see that they advise against publication of your work. Therefore, I'm afraid I must reject your submission for publication in Journal of Power Sources.

For your guidance, please find attached the reviewers' comments.

Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: This paper presents a xxx model and xxx method for it, simulation for xxx model are provided in frequency domain and time domain, respectively. The author has a good scientific writing style and figure format, and the mathematical deduction is rigorous.

However, I suggest that some experimental data should be provided to prove the accuracy of the xxx  model.

Reviewer #2: This paper reported a xxx model by xxx, leading to reduced computational costs. The proposed model  can be computationally advantageous. Overall, the analytical work is valuable and of archival value, which can be accepted if the authors can overcome the following shortcomings:
（三条小的问题）

请各位热心的虫友帮分析下，是该申诉一下呢，还是直接转投？谢谢！

 返回小木虫查看更多