| 查看: 672 | 回复: 0 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者海里的水泡将赠送您 50 个金币 | ||
[求助]
求助。chemical engineering and chemical processing,修改意见不知道怎么回
|
||
|
求助。投了一篇chemical engineering and chemical processing。请了三个审稿人。一审三个建议大修，编辑给了大修。第二审相同审稿人，一个通过，一个小修，一个大修。编辑让我继续修改。小修的审稿人态度比较正面，主要是一些细节上面的小问题，比较好改。 问题来了！那个建议大修的审稿人有一些问题我实在不知道如何回答。还占了较大篇幅。希望给位能给点意见。这是我的第一篇文章，也是第一次来这里发帖，表示很无助。 审稿人是这样说的： I have read the revision to the manuscript entitled "xxx". My general impression is that the work remains a potentially valuable contribution to your journal, but also that it is not yet ready for publication. In my previous review report, I gave the authors the general suggestion to take more care in preparing their manuscript, and I did not expect to receive their revision after only three weeks. Unfortunately, the authors did not provide adequate improvement of their work, which should come as no surprise after such a short turnaround time. I will have to maintain my recommendation for major revision, though I would advise the authors to retract their submission and resubmit only after substantial gain in quantity and quality of their work. There were many details in the previous manuscript that needed attention, and I hold the opinion that it is up to the authors to critically assess their own work and take care of imperfect details. Nevertheless I commend the first reviewer's work in listing a number of those imperfection. I am aware of the fact that the authors have addressed each of his/her comments, but still this can only be considered an insufficient response to the reviewers' comments. I will include some additional detailed comments in this review, I trust those to be duly addressed by the authors, but I expect a more critical attitude of them to their own work, as well as a revision that extends beyond merely addressing the specific points raised by the reviewers. 请问这两段我该怎么回答？ 还有在最后审稿人特意标出，作为一条独立的建议： - In their response to the previous review report, the authors refer twice to "your confusion" in relation to issues correctly identified in their previous manuscript. This is a rather unfortunate choice of words, and I would urge the authors to take more care in formulating their response. 这点该怎么回答？需要道歉吗？需要的话希望能在表述方面给点建议。小弟第一次发帖，太感谢了！ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有49人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有21人回复
-
哪位老哥知道今年的国自然具体哪一天放榜？
已经有5人回复
-
国基金的申报应该改成非等额制，评价高的钱多评价低的钱少，但是增加资助率
已经有8人回复
-
各位道友，我要去昆明玩几天，回来见。
已经有7人回复
-
filecode
已经有10人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有11人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有8人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有37人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有7人回复
