就一个审稿人，泛泛的意见
如标题，投的3M，投后迟迟不under review，联系过editor manager，协助联系过handling editor两次加速进程。然后，under review，似乎只找了一个审稿人，不到两星期，得到如下：
Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.
For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: This work describes analysis of flow behavior in ****. I think that the presented approach is interesting but I cannot recommend this paper for publication mainly due to 2 reasons:
- The introduction describes current approach to flow behavior models referencing papers published 80-90 years ago. Although *** approximation is still relevant and widely used in engineering calculations, I think that authors have to describe modern approaches to the fluid mechanics.
- I think that the subject is not suitable for 3M and more suitable for engineering journal dealing with fluid mechanics
只有一个审稿人意见，凭单个意见作出结论的，我第一次遇到过。不知大家是否遇到过？我感觉不合常理。
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
我最近也被拒过，也是一个审稿人，但是审稿人说的大部分还是有理有据的，还是多从自身找原因吧
是的，你说的对。但，这个意见实在是太泛泛了，不能让人信服，我都无从针对性的回应。
这很正常。
说你引言所列文献太旧了，更新下最新文献然后着重说明自己的创新点，转投其他期刊吧。
我的体会是，喜欢在评审意见中，说参考文献程成旧的，多半是一知半解型的评审人。因为实在找不到点了。殊不知，我部分引用的这些所谓的老文献，都是具有上千引用数的该领域内的经典文献。作为一个理论工作，将经典文献放入参考说明研究者基础扎实到位，并且也是一种惯用的做法，对于读者来说，尤其是那部分喜欢寻根的读者来说，无疑提供了全面细致的参考
，
到此结束，改改投其他