| 查看: 1118 | 回复: 5 | ||
| 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 | ||
[求助]
一个审稿人小修，一个审稿人据稿，编辑据稿，这个可以申述么？ 已有1人参与
|
||
|
如题。投稿到PRE。一个审稿人的意见是小修；另外一个审稿人的意见是据稿，编辑的意见 貌似是据稿。感觉挺遗憾的，觉得自己做的东西挺重要的。还可以再投，或者申述么？或者直接投稿到其他杂志？ 编辑的是个associate editor,意见如下： Dear Dr. X, The manuscript described here has been reviewed by two of our referees. Comments from the reports appear below. To be publishable in the Physical Review, manuscripts must be technically correct, must contain significant new physics or understanding, be of high quality and scientific interest, and be recognized as an important contribution to the literature. The comments of the referees suggest that the present manuscript does not meet the above criteria and thus is not suitable for publication in the Physical Review. As a small aside: we noticed that your eqn. (24) contains the sum of a vector and a scalar, which appears incorrect. Presumably you mean to write (x^2+\delta)^{n/2} or something similar. Yours sincerely, Associate Editor |
回复此楼
6楼2017-02-13 13:13:37
2楼2017-02-13 10:22:24
3楼2017-02-13 11:19:27
tibetnamco
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 72 (初中生)
- 金币: 2090
- 散金: 10
- 红花: 38
- 帖子: 801
- 在线: 112.5小时
- 虫号: 796561
- 注册: 2009-06-18
- 专业: 污染物行为过程及其环境效
4楼2017-02-13 11:19:39
