24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4285)
>导师招生 (361)
>休闲灌水 (200)
>虫友互识 (159)
>招聘信息布告栏 (147)
>文献求助 (138)
>论文道贺祈福 (117)
>硕博家园 (109)
>考研 (66)
>考博 (64)
>找工作 (52)
>博后之家 (50)
>基金申请 (47)
>生物科学 (29)
>教师之家 (27)
>论文投稿 (25)

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者三流作者将赠送您 5 个金币

三流作者

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 1115.7
散金: 111
帖子: 323
在线: 79.6小时
虫号: 4258533
注册: 2015-12-01
性别: GG
专业: 导航、制导与传感技术

[求助] Optical Engineering投稿被拒，两个评审意见相差很大，有必要申诉吗？

以下为编辑拒稿信：
The reviewers of the manuscript you submitted find that, although your work appears to be correct, the specific subject is not appropriate for Optical Engineering. After careful thought, I have decided to follow their recommendation. The reviewers' comments are included below. Perhaps they will be of help in finding a more appropriate journal for your work.
I regret having to decline your manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort required to carry out this type of study.
以下为评审意见：
Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
Appropriateness for OE: Good
Quality of writing: Good
Clarity: Good
Conciseness: Satisfactory
References to literature: Good
Relevance of figures: Good
Originality: Good
Significance of results: Good
Technical accuracy of results: Marginal
Rigor: Satisfactory
Detail level of procedures: Good
Substantiation of conclusions: Satisfactory

Reviewer #1 (Reviewer Comments Required):

It is quite interesting paper, however I would recommend that you revise conclusion. There are sentences(form and length), which could be generally used in the discussion parts. ……后面提了一些中肯的问题和修改意见

Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
Appropriateness for OE: Satisfactory
Quality of writing: Satisfactory
Clarity: Satisfactory
Conciseness: Satisfactory
References to literature: Satisfactory
Relevance of figures: Poor
Originality: Satisfactory
Significance of results: Marginal
Technical accuracy of results: Satisfactory
Rigor: Poor
Detail level of procedures: Marginal
Substantiation of conclusions: Marginal

Reviewer #2 (Reviewer Comments Required):

The structure to built a simple and mobile laser scanner is the only strong point of the research. The paper is too poor and the gives few examples to test the accuracy of the new tool. Then is not evaluated so much for mobile purpose and indoor to make a correct comparison with SLAM 。

我论文提到了SLAM，但是第二个评审提到的跟slam对比啥的beyond the scope of our paper，没提什么跟论文相关的问题，不知道他有没有认真看一遍论文……可能是我给自己挖了个坑，送审的时候送到了做slam的人手里，然而那并不是我的内容啊。。。
我给编辑发了个申诉信，死马当活马医了，不行就修改重投或改投了，网上之前没看到过这个期刊的申诉案例，第一次投外国期刊，不知道大家有何高见？

回复此楼