24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者XinHao020将赠送您 4 个金币

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

XinHao020

金虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 11847.6
散金: 15
帖子: 1270
在线: 107.4小时
虫号: 4235699
注册: 2015-11-21
专业: 无机合成和制备化学

[求助] 求助大神，帮忙分析一下大修意见已有2人参与

本人第一次投SCI实在是学渣渣，请大神帮忙分析一下大修意见
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This is a well researched paper. I would have accepted it "as is" but for one very small additions to apport, namely in the experimental part to define what are the exact proportions of XX and XX in the formulation. Second, In the table defoining the XX of the XX is to report what are the XX limits required of sthe standard quoted. Not all readers are familiar with Chinese standards.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
This paper has scientific novelty worthy of being published at XX. However it requires some revisions according to following specific comments.
Specific comments:
1) Lines 27-37, Page 3: Remove this sentence from Abstract.
2) Line 47, page 4: Change XX into XX.
3) Lines 36-44, Page 8: Report the real temperature during XX
4) Line 34, Page 11: 一个关于讨论的问题
5) Page 15: Unknown characters! They shall be oC.
6) Language improvement is required.

Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This article is very poor with respect to the use of both English grammar and English language structure. Nevertheless it is very interesting and focuses on a theme quite in vogue on which various research groups are very active.

Overall the work is quite interesting and follows a set of procedures perfectly established and a consistent methodology.

There are small aspects of the article that should be further exploited before its publication, notably the quality of the figure (legends and units), the quality of the thermal stability analysis (transitions, temperature range, etc...) and XX testing data analysis (他认为缺少一个检测数据) and the FTIR and C-NMR analysis, been scientifically correct would benefit from a more careful and structured writing.
In attach you can find an set of proposed corrections（发了一个附件竟然是从头到尾的润色的）.
由于现在时间上比较紧张，快毕业了，目前在找工作，无法再补充实验数据，因为审稿人提出的少个实验数据在以往的类似研究文献中并没有做类似的实验，可以不补吗，这样大修回去接受的几率大吗？求大神指教，万分感谢！！！！！！！！

回复此楼