前两天刚收到审稿意见，总共有两个审稿人，第一个审稿人给的意见是小修；第二个审稿人(身份是"Editorial Board Member"，编委？)，不同意接受，建议拒稿子，也给了不少审稿意见，不过都是批评性质的，好好的把我的文章喷了一顿。。。编辑给的决定是“reject”。

现在问题是，老师让我按照两位审稿人（尤其是第二个审稿人）的意见认真修改，修改之后再重投该期刊。

可是我看到要求拒稿的第二个审稿人是该期刊的编委，不知道重投后再次被拒的可能性大不大？

还请有相关经验的木虫们给点建议。。。

以下是编辑邮件回复的部分内容及两位审稿人的审稿意见：

We regret to inform you that the referee(s) have recommended that your article should not be published in the journal, for the reasons given in the reports. Your manuscript has therefore been withdrawn from consideration.

We would like to thank you for your interest in Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics.

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Dear editor and authors,
This is a paper provides a thorough experimental analysis of the XXX made at room temperature with different molar ratio and solution. I hope it can be published finally. However, there are a few minor things addressed here.
1.        Please double check the grammar before publication.  For example, in page 11 of 23, line 26 “This is because…”   
2.        Add reference in the introduction part, such as page 2 pf 23, line 40 “Our results suggest that the … under the same condition [add references please]
3.        Could the authors explain why the crystallite size increase with increasing PH? In page 6.
4.        Please be aware of the significant numbers.  Could the authors mentioned what software they use on the TEM image measurements? It is possible to be accurate to 0.325 nm? Also the author mentioned the crystallite size approx.2.52 nm? How many digitals is important?
5.        Page 14: Is the negative external bias (or the positive bias) the same like reverse bias in a diode to increases electric field?
Best wishes,


Referee: 2 (Editorial Board Member)

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The authors report the aqueous phase synthesis (either at room temperature or at 90°C) of XXX and studied the time-resolved carriers transport in these materials. The paper reports standard data for the known material. From my opinion, the manuscript does not have sufficient scientific impact to appeal to a broad readership and I do not recommend its publication in the Journal of Physics D.
- the introduction should be rewritten. The topic of this manuscript is poorly discussed in the context of literature.
- the experimental section must be clarified and synthetic protocols clearly described.
- paragraph 3.1 reports results already well documented in the literature for XXX. The results obtained are not appropriately described in the context of literature. For example, the shift observed in XRD patterns does not originate from the thiols function of the cysteine ligand as described by the authors page 6 but from the ligand decomposition followed by the incorporation of sulfide ions in the ZnSe lattice.
- the results and discussion section should be focused on the results described in paragraph 3.2. The advances made should be highlighted by the authors.
- the language must be improved.@Monash2011 返回小木虫查看更多