| 查看: 4232 | 回复: 27 | |||
| 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 | |||
王暖暖银虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
初审被拒，编辑给出一些意见，求助朋友们~~已有13人参与
|
||
|
前段时间投一文章，初审被拒，编辑给出一些意见，我能看懂大部分，但是担心漏掉老外说的重点，心里面也不知道这篇文章该何去何从，是放弃还是有修改的必要，所以求助论坛里的有经验的朋友们 下面是编辑的回复 On behalf of the Editorial Board of XX journal I would like to thank you and your co-authors for submitting your manuscript, I have now read your manuscript with interest but I regret to say that I have decided not to send your paper out for a full review in its present form. While the topic of your paper is within the scope of the journal, and the manuscript is quite well structured, I feel the material is incomplete, too briefly described and, as currently presented, may lack sufficient impact to merit publication, even though you present some encouraging results. My main reasons for coming to this decision are summarised below. With the greatest of respect, the standard of English is not at a level which would enable publication of the manuscript. While the language mostly allows the reader to understand the scientific content of the paper, there are a number of instances of what appears to be non-standard nomenclature (e.g. 'dense well', 'microcosmic pore-throat characteristics'). Specialist terms are introduced without explanation for the general reader ('auto-cycle and allogenetic cycle factors'). Abbreviations are used without explanation at first use (SSC, MSC, LSC). It would be helpful to provide definitions of SSC, MSC and LSC on first use, and a brief explanation of the application of the concepts to the analysis. There is insufficient explanation of some diagrams, such as the meaning of the colours illustrating fining-up or coarsening-up on the cycles. You have access to quite an extensive dataset (which I assume you did not acquire) but there is little or no critical evaluation of the data, discussing errors of measurements and their potential impact on the analysis you present. Values of various coefficients are presented but there is no mathematical definition of those coefficients or discussion as to the way they impact the interpretation. Petroleum Geoscience is a multi-disciplinary journal whose readers have a broad variety of expertise and disciplines. Your paper assumes a high level of specialist knowledge which would limit the readership. Finally, I feel that the conclusions from the analysis seem rather intuitive and their impact on further exploration of, or production from, the target formation is not brought out. Neither is there a discussion on the possible generalisation of the insights derived from this analysis to other formations or basins. Again, the journal is read by an international audience which is looking for parallels to their own areas of geoscience and so lessons learned in the way of general applicability of new concepts, insights or workflows are of greater value that a result for a specific formation. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you again for submitting your manuscript to Petroleum Geoscience and I hope that these comments may prove useful if you decide to rewrite the manuscript for submission to this or another journal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. With best wishes, (Chief Editor) |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
一篇论文初审17个月了
已经有10人回复
-
请教各位，产物溶解性很差且对水和空气敏感怎么打核磁
已经有7人回复
-
帮帮我
已经有5人回复
-
PCCP投稿
已经有4人回复
-
感觉在瑞典不适合做科研
已经有14人回复
-
现博士在读，硕士学校的硕导又让干活
已经有7人回复
-
应用设计类论文投稿求助
已经有8人回复
-
有感于请专家指导申报书
已经有14人回复
-
文章改了几轮，该投稿了，选了几篇杂志发给导师
已经有6人回复
-
大专在职教师是否需要读一个在职博士？
已经有33人回复
20楼2017-02-19 07:28:54
eiri
新虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 84 (初中生)
- 金币: 7592.3
- 散金: 3915
- 红花: 85
- 帖子: 8708
- 在线: 436.1小时
- 虫号: 4209911
- 注册: 2015-11-10
- 专业: 微观经济学
2楼2017-02-18 13:06:00
3楼2017-02-18 15:38:34
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
王暖暖: 金币+10 2017-02-19 19:35:18
王暖暖: 金币+10 2017-02-19 19:35:18
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
4楼2017-02-18 15:47:06
10
