24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 lshong 的 6 个金币

lshong

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 17.4
红花: 1
帖子: 6
在线: 2.3小时
虫号: 4424934
注册: 2016-02-22
专业: 高电压与绝缘

[交流] physics of plasma 投稿意见分析

我投了一篇Physics of plasma，审稿人意见回来说的很严重，感觉几乎就等于是拒稿，编辑部建议转投，但说也可以修改后再看。我想问问大家投过这个期刊的，返回来的审稿意见是怎么样的？是不是说的都是这么严重？

Editorial Office Comments:
We have received the referee's report on your paper. The referee's comments indicate that the paper is not appropriate for publication. You may consider revising your manuscript for submission to another journal or to AIP Advances, as described below.
Alternatively, you may choose to revise your manuscript to address the referee's concerns. If you do, you must submit a detailed response to the referee along with the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript is due by 25-Apr-2016 via the PXP web site. The Editors will then make the decision on the next step in the review process.

Reviewer Comments:
The paper presents nice photos of the evolution of ejected plasmas. However, there are major issues. The velocity is ~10^3 m/s, so it is a hydrodynamic development that has nothing to do with spark gap switching or trigger.
I do not understand why in fig. 2 the triggering pulse is shown and how the pulse energy is adapted (maybe it helps to give the values of C and R).
Fig. 3 is the worst of all. It shows an oscilatory voltage and current that are 90 degrees out of phase. So, for both reasons the dissipated energy beyond 2 microseconds is zero! In the first 2 microseconds the dissipation is roughly 1kV*10A*2us=20 mJ! Orders of magnitude below what the authors give. So I have no clue of what is going on in the pulse circuit. This makes it impossible to properly judge the results.
The authors do not even try to give conclusions, they only present a summary. This material should be presented at conferences where it should be thoroughly discussed in order to get good physics in the description.
A total rewrite is necessary to get this work to the level of a paper.

回复此楼