APL审稿意见回来了,各位虫友帮忙看一下有机会吗
The reviewers' comments are included below and/or attached. In view of their recommendations, we cannot accept your paper for publication in its present form. If you revise the paper to meet the reviewers' objections, we will be happy to give it further consideration.
Please indicate how the manuscript has been revised in a separate Response Letter file so that the editors can see whether you have complied with the reviewers' comments. Please use add file to upload the Response Letter file, and use replace for any files that have been revised or changed. Revised manuscripts must be submitted through the online submission system. They are not accepted by email.
The revised manuscript should be returned to the Editor promptly. Your revision is due by 15-Sep-2018. A manuscript returned more than 60 days from today should be submitted as a new manuscript and will be given a new receipt date.
Please go to the URL below to submit the revised version. To meet AIP Production requirements, please provide a separate figure file for each cited figure number (all parts in one file), in addition to your article-text file.
https://apl.peerx-press.org/cgi-bin/main.plex
(If clicking on the above URL address directly from your mail program is unsuccessful, please copy and paste the complete address into your browser.)
Thank you for the opportunity to examine this work.
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
就是修改呗,全是模板套话,啥信息也没有啊
格式
你这个发看不出来的,要发意见,不过给大修了,就要把握,70%了
同感,大修,好好改有戏的,加油
这是审稿人意见帮忙看一下
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
Does this paper meet APL's standards: Yes
Is the paper scientifically sound with the assertions made and conclusions drawn well supported: Yes
Is the discussion of related work and associated references adequate?: Yes
Is the English satisfactory?: Yes
Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes
Is the paper well organized and understandable?: Yes
Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
Does this paper meet APL's standards: No
Is the paper scientifically sound with the assertions made and conclusions drawn well supported: No
Is the discussion of related work and associated references adequate?: Yes
Is the English satisfactory?: No
Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes
Is the paper well organized and understandable?: No
,
你还是保守了,这只是打分,不是意见,你就好好修吧,有希望的,你这估计是一小修,一拒稿
最近APL的据稿率很高。如果编辑不是你这个领域的专家,修改稿可能会需要第三个审稿人来评判。
Good luck