| 查看: 2648 | 回复: 8 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者share0425将赠送您 47 个金币 | ||
[求助]
求大神帮忙看看我的SCI投稿意见，修改后回复的可能性大么？ 已有1人参与
|
||
|
Dear Author(s), We have received the review reports for your paper "**". We require now that you implement in your submission the following recommendations made by the reviewers: Reviewer A Comments: ================== Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication: It should be "Gas and coal outburst" in key words Writing about the modern methods used to assess the risk of outbursts should cite papers in this field for example: Zhang Ruilin, Ian S.: LowndesThe application of a coupled artificial neural network and fault tree analysis model to predict coal and gas outbursts. International Journal of Coal Geology, 84 (2010) 141–152 or Yu Zhu, Hong Zhang, Ling-dong Kon:Research of Coal and Gas Outburst Forecasting Based on Immune Genetic Neural Network. Proceeding WKDD '09 Proceedings of the 2009 Second International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Pages 28-31 or Zhanglin Guo1, Qingke Song, Jun’e Liu: Application of projection pursuit clustering method in the evaluation of coal mine safety. Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 71-78 (2011) pp 4868-4871 Changes which must be made before publication: Figuraes are too small Fonts on the axes appear to be different. Reviewer B Comments: ================== Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication: The publication requires a proofreading. There is a number of syntax, grammar and punctuation issues, which sometimes make the article not clear. Linguistic corrections will allow to fully and correctly assess the article from the content-related perspective. Nevertheless, I have read this paper. I am sending a few preliminary comments and I expect a response from the authors. Page 1 Line 29 and 30: Please correct K.A. De Jong surname and the title of the work (An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems, Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan) Line 29: Have you got any citation of Goldberg’s article? Page 2 Chapter 2: In this chapter you’ve repeated the following (or similar) sentence several times: “this method projected high dimensional data onto subspace of low dimensional “ line 15: Do you mean w(k) or v(k)? line 21 and 23: What do you mean when you write "For indexes whose value were the bigger/smaller"? Bigger and smaller than what? line 25: You defined vmin(l) and vmax(l) - and how do you define vmav(k)? line 37: You made an editorial error in the formulae. Page 3 line 1: The beginning of the sentence "Ez—z(k)(k=1~n)" is confusing. The description in lines 1-6 is also difficult to understand. Line 11: What does “s.t.” mean? You did not define “p”. Why did you use -1.0 and 1? Please be consistent and use -1 and 1 or 1.0 and -1.0. line 23: You wrote "obtained by 2.4 into formula (3)". What does 2.4 means? line 32: You wrote "seam thickness varied in a large range". Would you mind to specify this range? Line 33: You wrote "intricated grade of geological structure in Chaohua mine field was medium". "Medium" in what scale? Page 4 Line 12: How do you define "tectonic complexity coefficient"? In what units are the values of coefficients Q1 - Q9? Page 5 Line 9: Could you please provide a comment to Figure 1? Line 15: You did not define delta. Figure 2: In my opinion Figure 2 is misleading. By connecting points z1 to Z15 with a continuous line you suggest some linear relationship between these points. As I understand, there is no dependency between those points, and they are in the "location of working place" [m] 12, 272, 113, 244, 214, 389, etc. Perhaps, it would be better to connect these points by dotted line, or not connect them at all. Line 21: You said "According to the trend of a scatter distribution, the samples were divided into 3 grades". Therefore, I assume that the last column of table II ("Grade of Risk"  has been calculated by your method. Have you got any information on the hazard prediction in this areas done by the other methodology? Line 24: What is the reference of the calculated hazard to reality? Are there any studies, which show the effectiveness of the proposed method? Is it known in which risk group (according to the proposed method) were the regions where the outburst of gas and coal occurred? Is there any research showing the effectiveness of the proposed method? Is it possible to define a risk group for regions where the coal and gas outbursts happened? Page 6. Conclusions: Authors should compare their method with other methods of predicting rock and gas outburst. What is the correlation of the methodology proposed in the article with the hazard assessment carried out according to the current standards? What are the advantages of the proposed methodology over the methods, which are currently used? The authors should clearly demonstrate that achieved results are in correlation with the real state of hazard in the underground coal mines. References: I have noticed that some of the papers to which the authors refer to, are written in Chinese (it was not properly marked). Since a large number of potential readers are not familiar with this language, I suggest to remove references to papers that have not been written in English. Changes which must be made before publication: 1) The publication requires a proofreading. There is a number of syntax, grammar and punctuation issues, which sometimes make the article not clear. Linguistic corrections will allow to fully and correctly assess the article from the content-related perspective. 2) Authors should compare their method with other methods of predicting rock and gas outburst. What is the correlation of the methodology proposed in the article with the hazard assessment carried out according to the current standards? What are the advantages of the proposed methodology over the methods, which are currently used? The authors should clearly demonstrate that achieved results are in correlation with the real state of hazard in the underground coal mines. NOTE: Please send an email to the editor to acknowledge the reception of this email notification. The editor needs to make sure that messages reach the authors and don't delay the review process. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
生物学303求调剂，一志愿华中农微生物，六级已过，有科研有文章，党员
已经有4人回复
-
318求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
0703调剂
已经有11人回复
-
化学357分，考研调剂
已经有10人回复
-
0854求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
272求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
调剂求助
已经有13人回复
-
332求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
341求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
一志愿电子科技大学085600材料与化工 329分求调剂
已经有10人回复
wangqianwan
金虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2146.9
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 11
- 在线: 13.5小时
- 虫号: 2680140
- 注册: 2013-09-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 水泥与耐火材料
share04252楼2016-07-02 12:02:38
wangqianwan
金虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2146.9
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 11
- 在线: 13.5小时
- 虫号: 2680140
- 注册: 2013-09-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 水泥与耐火材料
3楼2016-07-02 12:03:53
4楼2016-07-02 13:18:15
5楼2016-07-02 14:56:46
wangqianwan
金虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2146.9
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 11
- 在线: 13.5小时
- 虫号: 2680140
- 注册: 2013-09-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 水泥与耐火材料
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★
share0425(paperhunter代发): 金币+3, 鼓励交流 2016-07-08 14:37:36
share0425(paperhunter代发): 金币+3, 鼓励交流 2016-07-08 14:37:36
|
他很仔细，提出来很多细节问题，你一个一个改，改不了的说明一下。后面说的必须改的第一条就是语法结构错误什么的，再润色下。主要是第二条说的，你要有对比。现有常用的突出危险性预测方法是什么，你提出这种方法的比起常用预测方法的优势在哪，指标解释清楚，还有就是有没有实际应用的例子。完善后逐一解释就好，不能做到的说明一下，只要不是直接拒稿你好好改下应该没问题 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
6楼2016-07-03 09:23:26
7楼2016-07-07 16:51:21
wangqianwan
金虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2146.9
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 11
- 在线: 13.5小时
- 虫号: 2680140
- 注册: 2013-09-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 水泥与耐火材料
8楼2016-07-08 17:51:05
9楼2016-07-08 21:29:08
