| 查看: 561 | 回复: 0 | |||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者wxmcp3将赠送您 12 个金币 | |||
[求助]
审稿意见怎么回复
|
|||
|
两个审稿人 第一个人说写的可以，小修后可以接受；第二个直接说要拒绝，编辑给了大修。 第二个审稿人的问题感觉不太明白，希望懂的大神可以帮帮我啊 A stochastic optimization procedure applied to ferroelectrics for piezoelectric applications, Ferroelectrics, 427, 63(2012); Stochastic optimization of ferroelectric ceramics for piezoelectric applications, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 44, 199-212 (2011)] except that they chose to use a different optimization algorithm. The reasons for such a selection is not mentioned either. Nevertheless, I would suggest them research on a comparative study of the optimization algorithms (i.e., between simulated annealing used by Jayachandran et al. and differential evolution algorithm employed by the authors) applied to this particular problem of piezoelectric material design. （这个是说我跟别人的研究类似，只是换了算法，并且没有给出使用不同算法的原因） 该怎么回答呢？？？ The single crystal optimization study taken up to validate the procedure reveals a fundamental error in this study that needs to be rectified urgently: The authors claim that "The optimum value d_33=2468.627pC / N obtained here compares exactly well with the experimental value 2411pC / N [28], which showed in figure 4(a)" and the single crystal "optimal solution (?,?,?) is (? = 60.343, ? = 62.920, ? = -2.214) expressed in degrees correspond to one of the [001] directions" found in PMN-PT is wrong.（这个直接说我有错误，唉 ，我不是学材料的，所以不是很懂） 急求懂的大神帮帮忙啊！ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
最近几年招的学生写论文不引自己组发的文章
已经有6人回复
-
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有56人回复
-
26申博自荐
已经有3人回复
-
A期刊撤稿
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)
