| 查看: 3113 | 回复: 25 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者追风筝的人w将赠送您 8 个金币 | ||
[求助]
投Electrochimica Acta，编辑让改后重投，大家帮忙看看希望大吗已有6人参与
|
||
|
投Electrochimica Acta，编辑让改后重投。个人感觉编辑对这篇文章还是看好的。两个审稿人，第一个觉得文章有意义，建议小修，而且修改内容很容易修改。第二个审稿人拒搞，感觉措辞比较严厉，其实没提出实质性的修改意见，感觉就是在挑刺。下面附上编辑来信，大家帮忙看看重投接受希望大吗？再问一下第二个审稿人最后两条意见是什么意思，没太看懂啊 The paper you submitted was sent out to referees for review. Please find enclosed their reports. As you can see, the referees find the manuscript unsuitable for publication; so much that one of them even recommends rejection. On the whole, the recommendations could leave some chance for the paper to be prepared in a more acceptable form for publication, but it is however clear that the manuscript has to be substantially revised and improved, practically rewritten. In particular, the comments of Referee 2 are especially severe. Under similar circumstances, from an editorial point of view the manuscript can only be PROVISIONALLY REJECTED. This means that, if you wish, you may resubmit a new manuscript based on this work. It is up to you to judge whether you will be able to present convincing arguments to the referees, particularly to Referee 2. In resubmitting a new version, please be aware that the new manuscript has to go to the relevant reviewers for further perusal and should thus either conform to or adequately rebut their requests. In any case the new manuscript will receive a different registration number. In the eventual preparation of a new manuscript , I would be grateful if you could try to comply with the referees' recommendations giving adequate reasons for your views where you may disagree with their criticisms. It would be helpful if you could send me a list of amendments on a separate WORD file (REPLIES TO REFEREES - please provide separate replies to each referee) together with the electronic version (WORD) of the revised manuscript (PLEASE HIGHLIGHT CHANGES WITH A YELLOW BACKGROUND). Yours sincerely, Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: This article is a typical contribution to the still popular area of chemically modified electrodes / sensors applicable to the determination of environmentally important heavy metals at very low concentration levels. In my opinion, the attractiveness of this paper relies on the use of a novel modifier, as well as the employment of a graphene, which is now highly popular material in physical and chemicals sciences as such. Regarding this, I can state that the paper is interesting and potentially suitable for publication. Prior to this, however, the manuscript in the present form requires some revision yet, reflecting the following comments and hints: 1) Abstract; page 1, lines 33-35 // Principal comment … The sentence starting with "In comparison with…" should be removed as it contains a subjective evaluation by the authors and not the fact nor information that both should mainly form the abstract for such a paper. 2) Abstract; page 1, last sentence // Recommendation … In my opinion, the reader(s) would appreciate if the authors specify the term "real sample". 3) Key-Words; page 1 // Recommendation … I am not sure whether the key-word "two-step hydrothermal process" is so inevitable for electrochemists and electroanalysts. Instead, some principal characteristic of the method could be given ! 4) Introduction; page 4, on top (as well as in Abstract) // Clarification … The authors repeatedly use the expression "free-standing" electrode (or material, resp.) that I have never heard before. May they explain what is exactly meant by saying this ? 5) Experimental; pages 5-6, as such // Principal comment … From the description offered, it is not very clear how the electrode looks, what is its configuration, and how the xxxxxxx is being incorporated into the measuring cell and circuit. In other words, how the whole electrode looks like and how it is operated during experimentation. Please, provide some details on all these options ! 6) Results + Discussion; as such // Formal note … The whole section is like a monolith and it is quite difficult to follow the text and the information given in. Otherwise speaking, please, be thinking about of a certain structure of this chapter - best, via its fragmentation into more sub-sections and/or sub-paragraphs. 7) Results + Discussion; as such // Principal comment … So far, the electrode based on the xxxxxx is proposed to be the sensor of choice for lead. Do the authors think that "their electrode" would also be applicable to determine more heavy metals simultaneously ? And if so, what will be necessary to do (or to overcome yet) ? Reviewer #3: My first and very serious comment goes to the introduction section: "Thus, it is very urgent to develop a rapid, simple and highly sensitive analytical technology for the detection of Pb2+.". After this rather misleading sentence, there is no discussion on the already existing mercury, bismuth, antimony and many other electrodes for measuring trace metal ions. The second very serious comment goes to Fig. S6: there is clearly shown that the electrode is put in the sample solution together with the metal electrode holder. Fig. S4: It is hard to believe that there is no signal at the bare graphene electrode. There should be at least a comment. - pg. 10; "Thexxxxxx exhibits a relatively high BET specific surface area of 217.03 m2 g−1, which enhances sensitivity for detection toward Pb2+. Furthermore, on the basis of the Barrett−Joyner−Halenda (BJH) model, the average pore size was determined to be 5.19 nm (inset in Fig. 6). These structures improve the adsorption capacity of heavy metal ions and reduce the limit of detection toward Pb2+." I guess this is a speculation. In addition, the LOD depends also on repeatability, ... - pg. 10 and 11; optimization of hydrothermal reaction time is not related to electroanalytical characteristics. - Fig. S5; It is not correct to set 160 s as optimal deposition time, since there is already a saturation effect. - Fig. 7a; After the modification process, the electrode surface is enhanced, too. - Table S1; again, no comparison with well-established electrodes. The article is relatively strong in material characterization, but extremely weak in electroanalytical part. Considering a very high level of Electrochimica Acta and with respect to the above comments, I do not recommend this article for publication |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
好运来！
已经有3人回复
-
高校老师工资真那么低么
已经有36人回复
-
产物呈油状怎么处理呀
已经有3人回复
-
孩子叛逆，我该怎么办
已经有5人回复
-
博士“读”后感。
已经有17人回复
-
广东面上基金状态可查
已经有8人回复
-
25级博士申请（仅限同济，汽车机械交通计算机）个人原因，勿喷
已经有8人回复
-
畜牧专业，sci有哪些期刊
已经有5人回复
-
博士开题
已经有17人回复
-
求教大家怎么增加自己特刊的影响力
已经有8人回复
5楼2016-09-06 09:14:25
chere279
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 105 (高中生)
- 金币: 1544.8
- 散金: 95
- 红花: 7
- 帖子: 728
- 在线: 236.8小时
- 虫号: 1163974
- 注册: 2010-12-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 电化学分析
10楼2016-09-07 15:15:39
liouzhan654
版主 (知名作家)
- 应助: 798 (博后)
- 贵宾: 5.504
- 金币: 53653.6
- 散金: 5660
- 红花: 181
- 沙发: 8
- 帖子: 9431
- 在线: 2139.6小时
- 虫号: 2048939
- 注册: 2012-10-08
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 传热传质学
- 管辖: 论文投稿
2楼2016-09-05 20:40:54
3楼2016-09-05 23:04:50
cqupenghao
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 219 (大学生)
- 金币: 4883.5
- 散金: 5205
- 红花: 42
- 帖子: 2345
- 在线: 534.4小时
- 虫号: 1077272
- 注册: 2010-08-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 资源化工
4楼2016-09-06 09:02:27
6楼2016-09-07 11:00:26
7楼2016-09-07 12:07:02
8楼2016-09-07 15:07:37
9楼2016-09-07 15:08:18
20