暑假在阅读文献的时间发现湾湾某学者提出的一个新的方法存在致命的错误，所以撰写了一篇评论的文章。一般而言，一事一议就可以了。没想到这个审稿人特别与众不同。估计是一审意见中他让本人提供某个方程的特解，认为十分有意义，本人反对说这个工作已经几年前有人做过了，并提供了出处。现在二审回来，又提了一堆问题，而且难以满足。如提供更多的类似错误，并分类等等，这个显然不现实的。另外称本人的行文不够吸引人，真无法修改。英文大修的时候时间已经叫一个外文系的老师修改过了，还是英文有问题。我相信非英语母语的没有办法否定，但也无法修改。最后编辑没有删除邮箱，不知道什么意思？
Drawbacks:



The manuscript is not academically-sounded and fails to possess the sufficient quality to be published in a reputed journal. Regardless of language, the manuscript has also not even been written in a fascinating manner. Due to the significance expressed above, I sought to provide an opportunity for the authors to do their best in revising the manuscript by adding some more materials to make it as fascinating and informative as possible to the readers. But the revised version does not turn out to be the case.

It can be good homework for undergraduate and even some Master's students to demonstrate that any results already presented in journals are not guaranteed to be correct, even if published in the most prestigious journals, even if they undergo double-blind peer review process, even if they have analytical scope whose correctness evaluation is much more traceable than the numerical and experimental ones!



At the end, if the editor's decision goes to the publication of the manuscript, I would recommend him/her to ask the authors at least to polish their manuscript more through:

_ presenting a higher number of published papers in which the obtaind multi-soliton solutions are not correct, along with writing their correspoding NPDE equatios and mentioning the analytical techniques applied to solve those equations and extract the wrong solutions.



_ It's a good idea to categorize the type of mistakes made in those papers to get wrong analytical solutions.



_ It's a good idea that the authors manage to have a short section of Discussion for discussing the potential analytical techniques which can be employed to successfully solve the ZK equation and extract its multi-soliton solutions.



_ Improving the English, writing style, as well as organizing the manuscript much better.
＃＃＃＃@gmial.com 返回小木虫查看更多