请问这两个审稿意见怎么样?CCC的
Reviewer #1: The topic is interesting and novel and the paper seems very complete concerning the number/quality of experimental tests performed to characterize the material. The work has potential for possible publication but the following aspects deserve answer/clarification:
Reviewer #2: This article continues the series of author′s scientific work focused on the halloysite.
The characteristics of the used halloysite and experimental methods are described in detail in the introduction of the experimental chapter.
The results of individual measurements are described in detail, and they are discussed extensively at the end of the experimental chapter.
There are no serious errors in the article. Recommendation: Publish after revision according to Comments to authors.
二审被拒的概率大不大
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
8
1
取决于你回复稿的具体情况,
这有什么可问的,第一次发文章吗?
对,还是小白
,
认真改肯定接受