| 查看: 6434 | 回复: 23 | |||||
| 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 | |||||
[交流]
一审给了major revision请问修改稿写word审阅模式么 已有10人参与
|
|||||
|
第一次投SCI，这样的意见最后接受概率大么？修改稿是用word审阅模式么？直接上传审阅模式么？还是自己标注？ 求各位大神指教。 以下是编辑和审稿人意见。 Dear Prof. .., Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Optics and Laser Technology. I have completed the review of your manuscript and a summary is appended below. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments. When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments, outline every change made point by point, and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Comments from the editors and reviewers: -Reviewer 1 General comments: In this manuscript, the weld pool behaviors and ripple formation in dissimilar welding under pulsed laser have been studied. A three-dimensional transient computational model has been developed to study this complex problem. The calculated results have been verified by experimental results. The manuscript is worth publishing， however I would like the authors to consider the following points before final acceptance. Special comments: （1） The English needs to be improved throughout the paper. （2） If the cross-section shown in Fig.7 is the same place as shown in Fig.5 or not？ （3） P4.Line1 “It is assumed that the mixing of two dissimilar materials did not occur at the process of keyhole formation”, what are the reasons that the authors put forward this assumption? （4） Explanation of Az2 in equation (3) is missed. （5） The calculated niobium concentration has been compared with the experimental result, but the explanation of the differences exist is omitted. -Reviewer 2 - 1. Totally, the content of this article is good and new, relevant to laser technology and mechanical engineering. 2. I think more explanation and discussion of the results and little bit more analysis is needed. 3. More figures and better quality of the given figures should be provided as the three-dimensional model is done, and also table of the results and supplementary data should be brought more fully. 4. Some basic information of the paper are referred to the references that it is better included in the text briefly. |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 如何写文章与投稿 | SCI审稿意见回复 |
» 猜你喜欢
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有23人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有36人回复
-
关于Filecode分析方法
已经有9人回复
-
2019年青年基金涵评意见，大家看看几个A，几个B?
已经有10人回复
-
不应该看fileCode
已经有6人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有6人回复
-
长年满屏的广告，版主太不责任了。基金也等的急
已经有4人回复
-
filecode
已经有15人回复
-
职称评审，求友友推荐见刊最快的期刊
已经有4人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有10人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 一审Major revision，请问该怎么改？
已经有13人回复
- major revise兑现诺言，发金币了哈
已经有162人回复
- BMC genomic 一审回来，大家忙帮看看这样的审稿人的意见怎么回复
已经有2人回复
- 一审回来了，有点看不懂，大牛们看看是怎么回事，急啊
已经有14人回复
- major revision
已经有7人回复
- 一审6个月二审3个月 AE这是啥意思 等不起了
已经有2人回复
- 一审回来编辑给了这样的答复，什么意思呢
已经有5人回复
- major revision 后二个月了还是under review
已经有8人回复
- sci投稿给了一审意见，被拒稿了，但是我觉得文章还行，想要申诉，该怎么处理？
已经有9人回复
- 关键时刻Earth Science Reviews文章2个半月后一审Decision in process,祈福
已经有21人回复
- 一审回复邮件，major revision的疑问？
已经有6人回复
- 博士阶段第三篇SCI后major revision 二审under review， 散尽金币求祝福
已经有63人回复
- 一审只有一个reviewer，大修后提交再审出现两个reviewers
已经有20人回复
- 麻烦各位大侠帮我看下编辑是啥意思，一审已经结束了，是不是被拒了呀
已经有30人回复
- CEJ投稿经验，预祝大家顺利毕业！
已经有6人回复
- 困惑~~ 只有一个比较细节的comments，编辑却给了我major revision
已经有3人回复
- 一审结果出来，杯具？有经验的请指教！
已经有31人回复
2010208290
银虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 56 (初中生)
- 金币: 205.3
- 散金: 1210
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1576
- 在线: 66.5小时
- 虫号: 1653569
- 注册: 2012-02-29
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 大气环境与全球气候变化
7楼2016-11-10 16:13:50
付敦
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 5541.6
- 散金: 200
- 帖子: 332
- 在线: 25.8小时
- 虫号: 2927409
- 注册: 2014-01-12
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 环境工程
2楼2016-11-09 21:21:47
3楼2016-11-09 22:12:50
2010208290
银虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 56 (初中生)
- 金币: 205.3
- 散金: 1210
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1576
- 在线: 66.5小时
- 虫号: 1653569
- 注册: 2012-02-29
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 大气环境与全球气候变化
5楼2016-11-10 12:58:41
