| 查看: 2873 | 回复: 2 | |||
| 【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 | |||
[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» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
sharenzhayan» 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
 |
2楼2016-03-29 11:35:47
3楼2018-10-02 19:27:09
