24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 2954  |  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

追风筝的人w

新虫 (小有名气)

[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
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 )

匿名

用户注销 (著名写手)

本帖仅楼主可见
5楼2016-09-06 09:14:25
已阅   申请SEPI   回复此楼   编辑   查看我的主页

chere279

金虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
楼主写文章的时候没有注意语气词和一些不确定词的使用,还有就是introduction文献综述有些夸大其词,显得整篇文章有点飘!~碰到的审稿人正好是严谨而专业的,楼主要好好思考文章中写作用词,不要太主管武断词语,要用事实说话。以前我碰到一个审稿人,就是因为文章中用了novel,for the first time,审稿人说不专业,不严谨。楼主好好修改还是有希望的。
10楼2016-09-07 15:15:39
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

liouzhan654

版主 (知名作家)

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优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖


感谢参与,应助指数 +1
追风筝的人w(paperhunter代发): 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2016-09-05 21:40:31
既然编辑这么说,说明还是很看好你的文章的,好好按照修改意见修改,希望还是很大的
思想是人类心灵的灯塔,指引着社会前进的方向。
2楼2016-09-05 20:40:54
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
3楼2016-09-05 23:04:50
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

cqupenghao

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖


感谢参与,应助指数 +1
追风筝的人w(paperhunter代发): 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2016-09-06 09:08:57
第二个审稿人说你的文章重在电极材料的修饰,在电化学分析方面比较薄弱,鉴于Electrochimica Acta的高端大气上档次,所以拒稿

其实你按照审稿意见认真修改后,还是挺有希望的
做事先做人,以诚为本!
4楼2016-09-06 09:02:27
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

追风筝的人w

新虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by 可不可以2009 at 2016-09-06 09:14:25
2月份投了EA,情况跟你一模一样,但是多了一个审稿人。两个说修改,第三个说拒稿,结果编辑给的是拒稿重投。你这情况我觉得是文章存在很大的问题。第二个审稿人确实很苛刻。 我后来想修改重投,后来写另外一篇文章了 ...

第二个审稿人其实也没有提出文章最大的问题在哪,他基本都只是陈述我文章的内容,搞得我都不知道如何修改。比如他最后两个问题,看不懂他到底觉得哪不好啊?
6楼2016-09-07 11:00:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

匿名

用户注销 (著名写手)

本帖仅楼主可见
7楼2016-09-07 12:07:02
已阅   申请SEPI   回复此楼   编辑   查看我的主页

追风筝的人w

新虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by liouzhan654 at 2016-09-05 20:40:54
既然编辑这么说,说明还是很看好你的文章的,好好按照修改意见修改,希望还是很大的

请问,我回复第二个审稿人的问题可以引用别人的文章来论证自己的观点吗?这样会不会让审稿人感觉我是在否定他?
8楼2016-09-07 15:07:37
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

追风筝的人w

新虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by 可不可以2009 at 2016-09-07 12:07:02
第二个审稿人有一个问题,把你的实验全部推翻了。...

请问是哪个啊?
9楼2016-09-07 15:08:18
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 追风筝的人w 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)
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] emo +5 Baaaaaaa 2024-07-24 5/250 2024-07-24 16:50 by 知竹常乐
[基金申请] 没消息是不是凉了 +13 mattysmu 2024-07-24 14/700 2024-07-24 16:42 by daoke
[基金申请] 大家说的几A几B到底是资助建议和综合评价 +6 27heaton 2024-07-23 9/450 2024-07-24 16:40 by daoke
[基金申请] 重点实验室开放基金,难度? +5 不知名矿工 2024-07-24 5/250 2024-07-24 16:28 by olivermiaoer
[基金申请] 会评结束后,从学校科研院(主管基金申请)能提前得到结果吗? +11 wang-nuaa 2024-07-21 12/600 2024-07-24 16:09 by hnyztjs
[教师之家] 65岁人大汉语言学科带头人王贵元被举报骚扰女学生 +13 babu2015 2024-07-22 17/850 2024-07-24 11:25 by cm14704019
[考博] 2025申请化学/生物博士 +3 Martin6666 2024-07-23 4/200 2024-07-24 09:40 by 李天祥pro
[硕博家园] 申博要求 +4 手机用户 2024-07-23 4/200 2024-07-24 09:06 by 材料souvenir
[基金申请] 2024江西省自然科学基金面上 +9 1chen 2024-07-21 26/1300 2024-07-24 08:58 by YY392619
[基金申请] 最新消息,今年面上平均资助率11%左右,几乎只有4a1b才能通过。 +30 nandi2212 2024-07-21 48/2400 2024-07-23 20:34 by 棉绒
[基金申请] 散了吧,做些有意义的事情,不要自寻烦恼了。 (金币+10) +11 newtime_1 2024-07-21 11/550 2024-07-23 19:39 by chenvy
[基金申请] 据称我们学校 一个方向的面上全部挂了 +16 赤子天龙 2024-07-20 23/1150 2024-07-23 15:33 by 桃花不语000
[基金申请] 国家自然科学基金工材口上会分数 45+4 tsklsakzb 2024-07-20 12/600 2024-07-23 13:37 by liu1102yuan
[教师之家] 自己现在才讲师,感觉硕士博士白读了。 +18 bingdningm 2024-07-17 20/1000 2024-07-23 09:52 by 北山有猪
[基金申请] 在读理工博士有哪些基金项目可以申请? 50+4 zhuxinyao 2024-07-20 5/250 2024-07-23 08:57 by lianas
[基金申请] 面上没上会 +27 flyboyflyfly 2024-07-18 35/1750 2024-07-22 23:10 by baijing1983
[基金申请] 预测一下,明年的“打招呼”会白热化 +32 AlphaGama3 2024-07-18 46/2300 2024-07-22 13:58 by 科学的硬核
[基金申请] 马上会评结束了,还是两眼一抹黑 +7 hypone 2024-07-18 9/450 2024-07-22 11:05 by wjh5217758
[基金申请] B口是今天会评吗? +4 Njester 2024-07-19 5/250 2024-07-20 16:29 by ericshine
[文学芳草园] 孤独岁月漫长 +3 蓬乔乔 2024-07-17 5/250 2024-07-19 12:50 by 天若孤独
信息提示
请填处理意见