| 查看: 666 | 回复: 4 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
236839923铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
【求助】 怎样回复JAPS的改稿意见
|
||
|
早些时候投了一篇jounal of applied polymer science的文章，现在按照外审老外的意见已经修改好了，有些方面因为没法修改，只要按照原样没加修改。现在要写一份怎么样修改的附带说明，因为是第一次投稿，不知道格式怎样写。 是不是要写成answer to reviewer 1,line * is corrected,and line #is not corrected,owning to ..........这样的格式啊？ 外审的修改意见如下： >From: exb6@case.edu >Reply-To: >To: wangxu@zjut.edu.cn >Subject: Journal of Applied Polymer Science - Decision on Manuscript # APP-2008-07-2278 >Date:Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:40:19 -0400 (EDT) > >19-Oct-2008 > >Dear Dr. Wang: > >Your manuscript # APP-2008-07-2278 entitled "Selective particle distribution and mechanical properties of nano-CaCO3/elastomer/polypropylene composites with high content of nano-CaCO3," which you submitted to the Journal of Applied Polymer Science, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter. > >A revised version of your manuscript that takes into account the comments of the reviewer(s) will be reconsidered for publication. > >Please note that submitting a revision of your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your revision may be subject to re-review by the reviewer(s) before a decision is rendered. > >You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Center. Log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/app and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Click on the Create a Revision link in the Action column to begin the revised submission process. Please submit your revision by 17-Apr-2009. > >When submitting your revised manuscript, please respond to each of the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You should use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. Please review the attached document listing the file requirements for your revision. > >IMPORTANT: We have your original files. When submitting (uploading) your revised manuscript, please delete the file(s) that you wish to replace and then upload the revised file(s). > > >Once again, may I take this opportunity to thank you for contributing your work to the Journal of Applied Polymer Science. I look forward to receiving your revision. > > >Sincerely, > > >Prof. Eric Baer >Editor, Journal of Applied Polymer Science >exb6@case.edu > > >Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: > >Reviewer: 1 >Comments to the Author >It is an interesting contribution towards the understanding of the distribution mechanism of nanoparticles in nanocomposites. It is relatively straightforward to follow the arguments of the authors. Nevertheless it is desirable to get a reviewed version of the English writing. > >Abstract >The last sentence is not clear. It appears that the authors want to enhance their interpretation of the toughening 慹ffect?in terms of a 憁echanism? This should be slightly more detailed. > >Introduction >The first paragraph on the use of PP and its limitations is based on a historic paper of Prof Bucknall 30 years ago?It would be fair to recognize that the situation changed and improved quite substantially since then. > >Experimental >In Section 2.2. ?the term 'rotator' should be replaced by 'rotor'. >In Section 2.3. ?the expression 'special mold at room temperature under a certain pressure' should be more explicit. > >Results and Discussion >In page 6, two last lines ?could the authors be more precise about the time required for the adequate migration of the nanoparticles from the EPDM vector to the PP matrix? >Page 8, line 6 ?it appears to be wa<0. >Page 8, Lines 7 and 8 ?it will be helpful for the readers to detail the calculation of the wetting coefficient. >Page 8, Line 11 ?The phrase 慔owever, due to the higher melt viscosity phase of EPDM, nano-CaCO3 particles cannot migrate into the EPDM dispersed phase?appears to need clarification. In fact the nanoparticles were already in the EPDM phase after the first mixing operation! >Page 9, line 13 ?the authors should provide experimental evidence, at least, on the increase of stiffness, especially for supporting the statement that follows in line 14. >Line 16 ?the authors claim at several points in the paper that their solution is cost effective. Some justification should be included based on the costs of the alternative solutions in terms of the prices of the raw materials and the additionally required mixing operation. > >Conclusion >The last phrase is not supported by any evidence throughout the paper > > >Reviewer: 2 >Comments to the Author >This manuscript should be modified for clarity and to insure that the conclusions in the text are adequtely supported by the experimental data. > >One focus of this paper is the impact strength as a function of concentration of CaCO3 nanoparticles, as shown in Figure 3. However, the authors note (page 9) that the impact strength of the binary composite is very similar to the nanocomposite. As I understand the caption to Figure 3, the PP:EPDM ratio is changed as nanoparticles are added. To show the benefit of the nanoparticles the authors need to show the effect of nanoparticles at the same PP:EDPM ratio. > >The TEM抯 in Figure 1 show the effect of compounding for the 37/13/50 composite. The authors need to explain why the amount of nanoparticles appears to differ in the three images. It appears as if there is more nanoparticle in Figure 1b. How can this be? > >The manuscript should also be proof-read by a native English speaker. > > >Reviewer: 3 >Comments to the Author >The authors demonstrated the improved impact strength in ternary system of CaCO3/EPDM/PP. The work is meaningful for polymer industry and well organized. Therefore, I recommend publication of the manuscript after introducing the following minor comments. > >1. In figure 1, the time-depent migration of CaCO3 is not clear. The authors should modify the figures with improved image. > >2. The authors should provide some size criterion about the fibrillation process. The figure 4 the criterion is not clear [ Last edited by wellok101 on 2009-1-11 at 05:41 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
计算机、0854电子信息（085401-058412）调剂
已经有5人回复
-
国自然申请面上模板最新2026版出了吗？
已经有13人回复
-
基金委咋了？2026年的指南还没有出来？
已经有3人回复
-
Materials Today Chemistry审稿周期
已经有5人回复
-
溴的反应液脱色
已经有7人回复
-
推荐一本书
已经有12人回复
-
基金申报
已经有4人回复
-
纳米粒子粒径的测量
已经有7人回复
-
常年博士招收(双一流，工科)
已经有4人回复
-
参与限项
已经有5人回复
zgxue2001
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
小小木木虫虫
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.12
- 金币: 14330.1
- 散金: 6783
- 红花: 12
- 帖子: 3199
- 在线: 396.9小时
- 虫号: 320442
- 注册: 2007-03-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 高分子合成化学
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
236839923(金币+20,VIP+0):非常感谢你啊
236839923(金币+20,VIP+0):非常感谢你啊
|
写一个题目为Response to Reviewers的修改稿 第一段用 I am pleased to answer the question of the reviewers’. Now I have revised the manuscript (你的文章编号) exactly according the reviewers’ comments, and found they are very helpful in developing the paper. 第二段 Response to Reviewer #1:。。。。。。 Response to Reviewer #2:。。。。。。。 Response to Reviewer #2:。。。。。。。 最后一段 In all, I found the reviewer’s comments are quite helpful, and I revised my paper point-by-point. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely yours [ Last edited by zgxue2001 on 2009-1-8 at 12:51 ] |
2楼2009-01-08 12:50:10
| 强！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ |
3楼2009-01-08 14:22:57
kovacs
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
～～——××
- 应助: 28 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 1.56
- 金币: 19686.5
- 散金: 1628
- 红花: 10
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 4094
- 在线: 294.6小时
- 虫号: 542201
- 注册: 2008-04-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 高分子材料结构与性能
4楼2009-01-08 16:37:38
lotoschen
木虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1679.3
- 散金: 932
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 194
- 在线: 24.5小时
- 虫号: 661970
- 注册: 2008-11-25
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 功能与智能高分子
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
236839923(金币+8,VIP+0):3QQQQQQQQ 2-6 08:58
236839923(金币+8,VIP+0):3QQQQQQQQ 2-6 08:58
|
我前几天刚刚回复了JAPS的改稿意见，比较有心得。而且修改稿投过去两天就接收了。 严格来说，这个回答应该是给编辑写的，所以刚开始应该这么写： Dear Prof. Eric Baer（一般可能都是这个编辑）: We wish to extend our deepest appreciation to you and reviewers for valuable suggestions about our manuscript titled "***篇名," (编号). Based on the valuable suggestions, we revised our original paper and responded to the comments of the reviewers. Enclosed please find the revised manuscript, original figures and respondence to the comments made by the reviewers. If you have any question, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Sincerely yours, ***（上传账户人的姓名）, PhD ***（所处职位） ***某某大学 ***某某城市，***邮编, China 另起一行，Respondences to the comments made by the reviewers: Reviewer: 1 1.问题 回答 2.问题 回答 等等 如果有需要在原文上修改的地方可以说“Thank you for your suggestion, and we corrected it in the revised manuscript.” |
5楼2009-02-04 23:22:11