| 查看: 1729 | 回复: 11 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
[交流]
renewable energy 投稿
|
|||
|
本人给renewable energy 有近20天了，还没收稿，还是Submitted to Journal状态。 请问各位虫友，这正常吗？？ 有没有投过该杂志的虫友啊 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
拟解决的关键科学问题还要不要写
已经有9人回复
-
最失望的一年
已经有17人回复
-
为什么nbs上溴 没有产物点出现呢
已经有6人回复
-
求推荐博导
已经有4人回复
-
存款400万可以在学校里躺平吗
已经有34人回复
-
求助一下有机合成大神
已经有4人回复
-
求推荐英文EI期刊
已经有5人回复
-
26申博
已经有3人回复
-
基金委咋了？2026年的指南还没有出来？
已经有10人回复
-
疑惑？
已经有5人回复
2楼2008-10-28 17:08:35
五行之水
银虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 405
- 散金: 100
- 帖子: 156
- 在线: 45.5小时
- 虫号: 592806
- 注册: 2008-09-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 可再生与替代能源利用中的
3楼2008-10-29 07:42:04
wyraul
银虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 19 (小学生)
- 金币: 11959.2
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 495
- 在线: 810.3小时
- 虫号: 493423
- 注册: 2008-01-10
- 专业: 半导体材料
4楼2008-10-29 12:51:11
5楼2008-10-29 15:42:35
6楼2008-11-07 18:06:32
7楼2008-11-08 08:43:18
8楼2009-08-21 17:25:36
huajunwang882
木虫 (小有名气)
伙计
- 应助: 3 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1821.2
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 272
- 在线: 271.6小时
- 虫号: 470055
- 注册: 2007-11-29
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 可再生与替代能源利用中的
9楼2009-08-21 17:46:57
zhongnanliuhui
木虫 (著名写手)
小木虫
- 应助: 13 (小学生)
- 金币: 2379.3
- 散金: 509
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 1343
- 在线: 808.4小时
- 虫号: 490715
- 注册: 2008-01-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 控制理论与方法
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
|
我投过 半年左右审稿回来 Dear Mr. 5555, The Editorial Board of Renewable Energy receives many excellent papers for publication, but since we have a limited number of pages available in each issue, it is not possible to publish all the papers submitted. I regret to inform you that following review your paper has not been recommended for publication in Renewable Energy in its present form. However, you are invited to resubmit the paper for re-review when you have addressed the issues raised by the reviewer detailed below. We thank you for your interest in Renewable Energy and look forward to receiving your revised paper. Yours sincerely, Editor-in-Chief Renewable Energy Review comments: The authors' Improved Time Series Analysis Method [ITSAM] seems to be new and worth consideration, although only time will tell whether it can achieve wide-spread use. However the paper needs considerable revision to make it suitable for publication. Most immediately striking are the faults in vocabulary and grammar [like '1th' instead of '1st', 'High' instead of 'Highly', frequent omission of 'the', 'Maintain' instead of 'Retain' or 'Keep', etc, etc]. In principle, it should still be possible to follow the text even with these faults but the complexity of the arguments makes it almost impossible to persevere in the face of such repeated difficulties over language. One minor bit of bad luck is the way the authors' computer treats (1), (2) and (3), putting them in circles. Many computers give a problem with (a), (b) and © but this can no doubt be taken care of with suitable editing. The reader is expected to compare the results shown in Figures 8 to 16. Unfortunately, little indication is given in the text and none in the figures themselves what differences the reader should be looking for. This makes them completely useless. One or two of the Figures might perhaps be retained to show what is going on but all the rest should be omitted and then a way must be found of extracting and expressing concisely [and preferably quantitatively] the key differences that need to be brought out to prove the point[s] that the authors are trying to make. The authors address the issue of wind speed forecasting but what is actually needed is wind power forecasting. A 9.44% error in wind speed does not sound too serious but a 31% error in wind power does. The mean of the cubes of a time-series is not the same as the cube of the mean so this is not a simple issue but something should be said, even if it only to recognise that the authors do not cover this discrepancy in their analysis. [If they are able to do so, that would, of course, be a very welcome addition to their paper.] 不知道算不算据稿还是有希望接受？ |
10楼2009-08-26 18:02:21