24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 3339  |  回复: 14
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者Mining将赠送您 3 个金币

Mining

新虫 (小有名气)

[求助] 审稿意见不太好,结果reject and resubmit 已有1人参与

environment earth science 审稿大半年,返回意见,结果是reject andresubmit,不知希望大不,意见如下:
Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received.  You will see that they are advising against publication of your work; however, are encouraging you to resubmit the manuscript with extensive revisions.

The reviewers' comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided

If you choose to revise your original research, you must make all the necessary modifications before resubmitting to Environmental Earth Sciences for further evaluation.

Please revise your original manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. PLEASE PROVIDE A REVISED MANUSCRIPT WITH ALL CHANGES CLEARLY MARKED (E.G. IN RED, BUT NOT IN TRACK CHANGES VERSION) SO THAT THE REVIEWER CAN EASILY ASSESS YOUR REVISED WORK. When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the reviewer's comments.  To expedite the review of your revised manuscript, please be specific and direct.   

Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center and please delete the old versions of your files.   

Please make sure to submit your editable source files (i. e. Word, TeX).

To facilitate timely publication, your revised paper should be uploaded swiftly.  If it is not possible for you to submit your revised manuscript in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your revised version as a new submission.   

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your manuscript.

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1:
There is no novelty in the text. In addition, the quality of the language needs to improve significantly by a native English speaker.


Reviewer #3:
This paper constructed a model to compute hydraulic gradient of PTBS transported in pipeline. A good contribution is that hydraulic gradient can be calculated through 3 variables (pipe diameter, flow velocity and slurry mass fraction) which are all easy to achieve. So, it is certainly topical and of interest to researchers in related areas. However, there are some problems with this paper.

1. The difference between paste-like and paste should be described more clearly. My suggestion is adding a group of slump test to distinguish them macroscopically.

2. Figures in this paper need all to be redrawn more clearly, and the text in the figures exported from software should be translated to English.

3. It is better to mark key data in Fig.2, and describe it in the figure caption.

4. In the chapter of DATA PREPARATION, mass fraction of paste-like varies from 68% to 76%; however, the relative error of hydraulic gradientvalues measured by site experiment and calculation model is 12% when mass fraction is 70%. Is it bigger at 68%? Analyze it!

5.The 'numerical simulation' in Table 5 may mean 'calculated value'? It appears in various places in the chapter of INDUSTRIAL VALIDATION. Check carefully!

To sum up, the formula derivation process in this paper is reasonable; the research methods are feasible; and the result is reliable. However, for the problems above, it certainly should be revised carefully.


Editor-in-Chief's comments:
In addition to addressing the concerns of the reviewers above, please take care of the following:
1. You must obtain assistance with revisions to the English presentation as there are problems.
2. References:  Please be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.
When citing references by the same author(s) in a sequence, only use the year for the second, third, etc.; for example: Wang et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2011 should be cited as: Wang et al. 2011, 2012.

发自小木虫IOS客户端
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

paperhunter

荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)

还没想好

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖


感谢参与,应助指数 +1
Mining(liouzhan654代发): 金币+1, 感谢交流 2016-05-16 08:46:08
第一个审稿人说文章没有新意,楼主需要列出文章的创新点;第三个审稿人的意见比较正面,但提的问题比较多;主编提到了语言需要润色以及参考文献引用格式的问题。这些都需要修改到位。如果楼主能够参考第三个审稿人和主编的意见作出到位的修改,回答能够令两个审稿人和主编都满意,再投后文章被接收的希望很大。
咱也是有组织的人了...
4楼2016-05-15 18:22:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖
2楼2016-05-15 17:34:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

SARDemo

新虫 (正式写手)


Mining(liouzhan654代发): 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2016-05-16 08:46:00
有点难 第一个审稿人直接no novelty~ 不过可能是写作问题,好好改改试试

发自小木虫Android客户端
3楼2016-05-15 18:20:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

沈万三1991

新虫 (初入文坛)

楼主加油,同被拒稿重投,审稿人说我English is so poor.
爱交流!!爱学习!!~~
5楼2016-05-15 19:00:45
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
6楼2016-05-15 23:15:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

blueyang

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by 沈万三1991 at 2016-05-15 19:00:45
楼主加油,同被拒稿重投,审稿人说我English is so poor.

审稿人说话这么mean,一般都是说writing 需要提高之类的么。
7楼2016-05-16 09:28:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
8楼2016-05-16 09:57:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

沈万三1991

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by blueyang at 2016-05-16 09:28:14
审稿人说话这么mean,一般都是说writing 需要提高之类的么。...

是啊!还加了个“so”
爱交流!!爱学习!!~~
9楼2016-05-16 09:57:45
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

blueyang

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
9楼: Originally posted by 沈万三1991 at 2016-05-16 09:57:45
是啊!还加了个“so”...

没办法,找native speaker 看看,修改,即便是很mean,那也要修改呀,万一很不幸在遇到同一个审稿人就惨了。
10楼2016-05-16 17:07:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 Mining 的主题更新
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
信息提示
请填处理意见