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guangnian09将赠送您 10 个金币

guangnian09

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 73.8
帖子: 9
在线: 21.7小时
虫号: 4142280
注册: 2015-10-13
专业: 爆炸与冲击动力学

[求助] 恳求大神帮我具体分析一下这个审稿意见

审稿打分和意见如下：
Ratings: 5=excellent, 4=good, 3=average, 2=poor, 1= unacceptable

1. Content
Technical quality (1-5)    :  [  4  ]
Technical originality (1-5) :  [  4  ]

2. Presentation
Overall format (1-5)          :  [  3  ]
Abstract (1-5)                :  [  3  ]
Figures and tables clarity (1-5) :  [  3  ]
English (1-5)                   :  [  3  ]

3. Recommendation (tick one)
Accept                               :  [ ]
Accept with minor revision          :  [ ]
Accept with major revision          :  [  x  ]
Recommend for conference instead :  [  x  ]
Reject                               :  [ ]

4. Brief summary and further comments for the author(s) if any for improvement of the paper.
(Use a separate sheet if necessary)

The results are not significant enough for journal publication yet.
Much more comprehensive results and evaluations are needed for journal publication.
The authors have to further improve the technical writing and presentation of the paper.
Additional suggestion: It would be desirable if the authors can cite some updated references and some open-access journals, which provide full article contents free of charge

回复此楼