24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 2575  |  回复: 15
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者迷茫的科研人将赠送您 20 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

迷茫的科研人

银虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 帮我看看下面审稿人的意见咋样,有希望吗? 已有2人参与

如题,本人两个月前投了一个四区的SCI文章,今天收到审稿意见了,貌似是要大修,具体意见如下:  (请大神帮忙解读一下,问我这个要具体怎么修改哦,最终被录用的机会大不大)
Comments
From references made in the paper introduction I see that the authors do not know the state-of-the-art in the field: Almost references used (e.g., [1-7]) have been criticized in recent reviews [A1, A2]. The main point of this criticism is that the approaches that researches [1-15] have used are not consistent with the empirical nucleation nature of traffic breakdown at road bottlenecks. It seems that the authors do not know the empirical nucleation nature of traffic breakdown at road bottlenecks at all. Therefore, the results of this paper are not scientifically sound: It is not shown that the authors’ approach is consistent with the empirical nucleation nature of traffic breakdown at road bottlenecks.

Thus I recommend rejecting this version of the paper.

Nevertheless, I recommend to give the authors a possibility to show whether their approach is consistent with the empirical nucleation nature of traffic breakdown at road bottlenecks.
To reach this goal, I recommend the authors read the reviews [A1, A2], the books [A3, A4] and the article [5] in which the empirical nucleation nature of traffic breakdown at road bottlenecks has been explained in details and has been used for speed limit control. The authors should refer to [A1-A5] in the revised paper that should be reviewed once more.
The authors should try to show whether their approach is consistent with the empirical nucleation nature of traffic breakdown at road bottlenecks.


Additional literature:
[A1] B.S. Kerner, Physica A {\bf 392} 5261--5282 (2013)
[A2] B.S. Kerner, Physica A {\bf 450} 700--747 (2016)
[A3] B.S. Kerner, {\it The Physics of Traffic}, (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 2004)
[A4] B.S. Kerner, {\it Introduction to Modern Traffic Flow Theory and Control}, (Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York 2009)
[A5] B.S. Kerner. “Study of freeway speed limit control based on three-phase traffic theory”. Transportation Research Record, 1999, 30-39 (2007).

帮我看看下面审稿人的意见咋样,有希望吗?
意见.png
回复此楼
行百里者鲜
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

迷茫的科研人

银虫 (著名写手)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by paperhunter at 2016-12-19 23:17:07
不懂楼主的专业,貌似审稿人认为楼主对研究领域的最新进展缺乏了解,引用的文献存在理论缺陷,导致论文的科学性存在疑问,要求楼主引用五篇文献(有可能是审稿人本人的)进行解释和讨论。

您说的很有道理啊,我就饿觉得有可能文献是审稿人的,因为下面五个文献都是同一个作者。那据你分析,我引用他的文献后还有没有可能。我现在也不着急,有很长世间,是否有必要进行修改?
行百里者鲜
9楼2016-12-20 10:01:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 16 个回答

風VS雲

木虫 (著名写手)

心静自然明
2楼2016-12-19 21:38:13
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhangdyhit

捐助贵宾 (小有名气)


感觉他对你写的不太认可 有时候表述需要比较专业恰当 可以提供帮助

发自小木虫IOS客户端
3楼2016-12-19 21:56:50
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

paperhunter

荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)

还没想好

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
不懂楼主的专业,貌似审稿人认为楼主对研究领域的最新进展缺乏了解,引用的文献存在理论缺陷,导致论文的科学性存在疑问,要求楼主引用五篇文献(有可能是审稿人本人的)进行解释和讨论。
咱也是有组织的人了...
4楼2016-12-19 23:17:07
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
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] 国社科又开始会评了,不知道这次命运如何 +3 雨打竹帘 2026-08-30 3/150 2026-08-30 09:43 by KNIGHT2011
[基金申请] 麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见(F口面上) +6 gdd2018 2026-08-28 11/550 2026-08-30 08:58 by 超级无敌华子
[公派出国] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急 +3 G6APbkg8SA6w 2026-08-29 4/200 2026-08-30 07:28 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[找工作] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急 +3 gy1nBQXYQJqL 2026-08-29 7/350 2026-08-30 06:43 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[找工作] 售SCI文章,我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急 +4 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 8/400 2026-08-30 06:13 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[硕博家园] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急 +6 ASdOkHsho7FD 2026-08-28 13/650 2026-08-30 05:38 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[考研] 售SCI一区文章,我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急 +4 G6APbkg8SA6w 2026-08-29 5/250 2026-08-30 02:40 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[论文投稿] 售SCI一区文章,我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急 +4 gy1nBQXYQJqL 2026-08-29 4/200 2026-08-30 02:09 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[论文投稿] 售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急 +5 gy1nBQXYQJqL 2026-08-29 6/300 2026-08-30 01:58 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[博后之家] 售SCI文章,我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急 +5 gy1nBQXYQJqL 2026-08-29 6/300 2026-08-30 01:47 by ZPa0EcMwuECS
[基金申请] 中青基了要发朋友圈吗? +4 349506619 2026-08-28 4/200 2026-08-29 22:41 by alongwaytogo
[基金申请] 国自然评审意见 +13 wangmingqi 2026-08-28 19/950 2026-08-29 10:22 by Poppy1104
[基金申请] 基金未中,这种答复是模板吗? +5 zhaosm1982 2026-08-27 6/300 2026-08-27 16:00 by lfy8008
[基金申请] 怎么看青基中了没有啊 +5 叶九微 2026-08-26 5/250 2026-08-27 10:35 by l_zh2008
[文学芳草园] 梦想 +3 myrtle 2026-08-26 3/150 2026-08-27 10:01 by angelyueyi
[基金申请] 为什么 国际(地区)合作与交流项目 没有放榜? 10+3 majunge000 2026-08-26 11/550 2026-08-27 08:42 by 北京莱茵编辑
[基金申请] 2026年8月25日国自然放榜前突然收到列入评审专家邮件,有关系吗? +25 木水思豆 2026-08-25 28/1400 2026-08-26 14:53 by draco1987
[基金申请] 今天务委会开完了,明天出结果吗 +19 angus9576 2026-08-25 23/1150 2026-08-26 10:03 by zp519
[基金申请] 牛来!米来!面来! +8 beefly 2026-08-26 8/400 2026-08-26 08:37 by xuzhipiao
[基金申请] 某些机构,以效率低为荣,以效率低作为存在感 +9 yuleib84 2026-08-25 10/500 2026-08-25 17:14 by alexon
信息提示
请填处理意见