4月10号投了RSC advances，今天返回了审稿意见，两个审稿人，一个说创新性不足，拒稿；一个说创新性不足，但是给出了大修的意见，要求补个拉曼数据。编辑人给了个大修意见，说要在修改稿中写明创新点。有没有类似经验的同仁们给说下~~~
I have carefully evaluated your manuscript and the reviewers’ reports, and the reports indicate that major revisions are necessary.  Both reviewers had concerns about the novelty of the work, and one reviewer recommended rejection on this basis.  Thus, it is very important that you clearly outline what is new about this work in your revised version of the manuscript.
Referee: 1

Recommendation: Reject

Comments:
In this manuscript, the authors suggested a simple and cost efficient way of producing hierarchical porous carbons via the direct carbonization of polymer. The authors used terephthalaldehyde and resorcinol as carbon precursors and metal chloride as reaction assistant. The authors found that zinc chloride acted as pore generator in the carbonization step to produce highly porous carbons, which results in the high specific capacitance as electrode for supercapacitors. However, as the authors are well aware of it, lots of papers regarding the effectiveness of zinc chloride as activation agent for producing porous carbons was previously reported. It is very hard for me to see the scientific originality of the present work over the previously reported papers. Even though the authors emphasized high cost performance of their synthetic method, I am not able to recommend the publication of this work at this journal due to the limited scientific advances.

Additional Questions:
Does the work significantly advance the understanding or development in this field? : No

Are the conclusions of the work convincing and sufficiently supported by experimental evidence?: Yes

Is the experimental section sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work?: Yes

Are the reported claims adequately discussed in the context of the literature?: No

Are the number of tables and figures in the manuscript appropriate and clear?: Yes


Referee: 2

Recommendation: Major revisions

Comments:
Not sure what is novel here.  There have been many studies of porous carbons prepared similarly.  Authors need to make this clear, otherwise, it reads like a mini-review rather than a research paper. Do authors have any Raman spectroscopy data on samples that may lend insights into the degree of disorder of the various carbons?


Additional Questions:
Does the work significantly advance the understanding or development in this field? : No

Are the conclusions of the work convincing and sufficiently supported by experimental evidence?: Yes

Is the experimental section sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work?: Yes

Are the reported claims adequately discussed in the context of the literature?: Yes

Are the number of tables and figures in the manuscript appropriate and clear?: Yes 返回小木虫查看更多