24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3266)
>文献求助 (315)
>虫友互识 (243)
>导师招生 (171)
>考博 (134)
>论文投稿 (109)
>基金申请 (98)
>硕博家园 (69)
>博后之家 (66)
>公派出国 (58)
>找工作 (54)
>休闲灌水 (50)
>招聘信息布告栏 (40)
>考研 (39)
>教师之家 (36)
>高分子 (21)

返回列表

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

willwinjy

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 44 (小学生)
金币: 1488.1
帖子: 675
在线: 247.8小时
虫号: 568137

[交流] 这个重投有希望吧！

Dear Dr :

Manuscript ID:
TITLE:

Thank you for your submission to *****, published by the ******. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below.

After careful evaluation of the manuscript and reviewers’ comments, I regret to inform you that I do not find your manuscript suitable for publication and therefore it has been rejected in its current form.

However, if you are able to fully address the concerns raised by the reviewers in the reports below, I will consider a substantially rewritten manuscript which takes into account all of the reviewers’ comments. If you choose to resubmit your manuscript, please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made.

Your manuscript will receive a new manuscript ID and submission date and further peer review will be necessary. Please note that re-submitting your manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance in RSC Advances.

You can re-submit your manuscript using this link:

***************************************************

(Please note that this link goes straight to your account, without the need to log on to the system. For your account security you should not share this link with others.)

Alternatively, you can log in to your account (******************) and click on "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. You will need your case-sensitive user ID and password details to login.

I look forward to receiving your re-submission.

Yours sincerely,
Dr *********
Associate Editor, *******

说明一下：
本人第一次投稿，初稿实验部分比较新颖，但前言介绍没怎么花心思。

两个审稿人，一个给了拒稿，一个大修。
拒稿的貌似没有看明白论文，没有太多意见，但提供了4个参考文献要求进行对比分析。
还有就是说其中一篇文献说我做的一样产物与其相似，但实际合成路线是完全不同的。
被拒和大修的主要原因是两个审稿人都对前言发展部分不满意，要求好好修改，提供更多解释说明。
对合成步骤重复性，原创性，图表的规整性没有异议。大修的审稿人甚至给出好评。

看编辑的话貌似还挺客气，再投是不是中的可能性挺大？

回复此楼