Carbohydrate Polymers拒稿，可是编辑没有给具体理由，只是说根据审稿人的意见决定，然而审稿人只有两个而且意见截然不同。大家看看怎么办吧，能重投吗？重投要注意些什么？

下面是拒稿信：

Dear xxx,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Carbohydrate Polymers.

Regretfully I must inform you that the paper is not acceptable for publication. I have taken into account the reviewers' comments and made an editorial decision not to accept the paper.

Please find below the referees' comments on your paper.

Thank you for your interest in submitting to Carbohydrate Polymers.

Yours sincerely,

Tatiana Budtova, PhD, Habilitation
Editor
Carbohydrate Polymers

Reviewer #1: In this paper, the authors investigated xxxxxxxxxx
The results will be interesting among readers from textile and relevant fields and those findings may bring practical information in textile industry. According to my understanding, there are some technical innovations and new findings in this study. I would suggest this manuscript to be considered for publication in Carbohydrate Polymers after a few revisions.
Some revisions which should be done are listed as follows:

1. As shown in Fig. 1, decomposition increased with the raised temperature from 30°C to 90°C. Fig. 1 shows the effects of duration time on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide at the same time. I cannot understand the influence of duration time on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide from 30 min to 60 min for the controlled process. How to explain that? I think author should repeat the work of the controlled process at 60°C and 90°C, respectively.

2. Line 188: "Duaration" should be changed to "Duration".

3. I suggest that the pH value at various NaHCO3 concentrations should be traced and shown in Fig. 2C. The pH value is a critical factor in the hydrogen peroxide bleaching system. Carbohydrate Polymers is a comprehensive science journal. To complete the above work, it is benefit for textile and relevant fields workers to understand the results.

Reviewer #2:
1. Ｉ can't find any novel ideas in this work. Many works focus on the cotton bleaching, using one step or at low temperature. Authors should point out their own advantages compared with the previous published work.

2. Authors only described the process and the results, but not discussed the reasons in details. For example, how to prove that there exist Cu3+ ions?
3. Using Cu2+-HCO3 bleaching system is environmental-friendly?
4. The graphic abstract is not meaningful.
5. Writing should be improved. This is an experimental report, not a research paper. 返回小木虫查看更多