24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3818)
>文献求助 (512)
>导师招生 (336)
>虫友互识 (327)
>考博 (110)
>博后之家 (104)
>硕博家园 (99)
>论文投稿 (98)
>休闲灌水 (82)
>基金申请 (74)
>公派出国 (68)
>考研 (66)
>招聘信息布告栏 (62)
>论文道贺祈福 (51)
>教师之家 (48)
>找工作 (43)

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

zyugiec

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 483.4
散金: 8
红花: 5
帖子: 409
在线: 774.7小时
虫号: 545360
注册: 2008-04-14
专业: 能源化工

[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

青椒八年已不青，大家都被折磨成啥样了？已经有5人回复
青年基金C终止已经有3人回复
26申博求博导推荐-遥感图像处理方向已经有4人回复
限项规定已经有7人回复
救命帖已经有8人回复
招博士已经有4人回复
西南交通大学国家级人才团队2026年博士研究生招生（考核制）—机械、材料、力学方向已经有3人回复
英文综述是否需要润色及查重已经有5人回复
为什么nbs上溴没有产物点出现呢已经有9人回复

1楼 2008-10-28 17:05:08

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

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

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？