各位牛人来帮我分析分析,三个月前投的PCCP,一个反对,两个要求修改再说
各位牛人来帮我看看,三个月前投的Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics,今天终于给我回信了。总共有三个审稿人的意见,大致意思如下:
第一个审稿人的主要观点:However, the manuscript might be out of the scope of Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (PCCP). The authors have not discussed detailed chemical or physical aspects of the investigated solids, a useful comparison with experimental results is lacking in the present paper. 然后列举了一些问题,最后I do not recommend this manuscript for publication in the PCCP.
第二个审稿人的主要观点: This manuscript is well organized and the conclusion is reasonable. I suggest the acceptance of this manuscript after addressing the following point. 后面列了三条整改措施(比较好对付)
第三个审稿人的主要观点:I therefore cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in the present form. I encourage authors to resubmit the manuscript to the Physical Chemistry Chemica Physics journal after properly addressing previous referees' observations and the following ones:
后面列了十一条整改措施(迄今为止遇到的最多的一次,而且都比较犀利)。
编辑的意思:Therefore it has been rejected in its current form.However, if you are able to fully address the concerns raised by the reviewers in the reports below, I will consider a substantially rewritten manuscript which takes into account all of the reviewers’ comments. If you choose to resubmit your manuscript, please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made.
诸位有没有投过PCCP或碰到类似情况的,帮我寻思一下:第一名审稿人的意见是反对的。如果我按照第二和第三审稿人的要求修改了,达到了他们的要求,那中的概率大吗?”2:1就能赢吗?
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
祝福
还是修改吧
6
不好说,编辑给你什么意见呢?
很多情况都是一片否决。
后面两个改好了,中的概率比较大,应该在70%以上
编辑说基于目前的情况是拒绝,但如果按照审稿人的意见修改,他们还是会重新进行审稿
,
谢谢