| 查看: 12897 | 回复: 10 | |||
| 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 | |||
[交流]
两个审稿人，一个大修一个拒稿很尖锐，编辑让我大修，拒稿的问题很难回答。 已有8人参与
|
|||
|
投的是SR （Scientific Reports），可能很多同志都看不上，主要是本人小硕实力有限，实验室投SCI的也很少，没有这个环境。 下面说正事 文章是2017.4.16投的，质量检查到2017.5.5终于算是完成，投稿成功。 2017.5.15分配到编辑手里，2017.6.20开始Decision Started，2017.6.30收到修改邮件，下面是邮件的一些具体情况： Your manuscript entitled "XXXXX" has now been reviewed and the reviewer comments are appended below. You will see that, while they find your work of interest, they have raised points that need to be addressed by a major revision. Please try to address critical comments from both reviewers, especially reviewer 3. Reviewer comments: Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): Is the manuscript technically sound?: N/A Could the manuscript become technically sound with revision?: Yes Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?: N/A Are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions?: Yes Does the manuscript only duplicate previous work?: No Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties?: Yes References: appropriate credit given to previous work?: No Is the manuscript written clearly using Standard English?: No Images (including electrophoretic gels and blots) are free from apparent manipulation?: N/A Recommendation: Major Revision 然后提了一些具体的建议，主要就是这个方法改进在哪里，优点是什么要详细的说，下面是第二个审稿人； Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): Is the manuscript technically sound?: No Could the manuscript become technically sound with revision?: No Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?: No Are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions?: N/A Does the manuscript only duplicate previous work?: N/A Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties?: N/A References: appropriate credit given to previous work?: Yes Is the manuscript written clearly using Standard English?: No Images (including electrophoretic gels and blots) are free from apparent manipulation?: Yes Recommendation: Reject 最主要的是他的意见 很难回答 This manuscript is not written as a paper but a homework exercise. They only list some trivial facts (conlusions) but no detailed interpretation and comparison with the results given in the literature. So we can not learn their contributions to this field and why their method works. Some interpretations of their figures do not support their conclusions, see Figure 3 and Figure 5 for example. 看到说我的论文不像论文而像家庭作业那边我就已经懵了  ，意见也是十分严峻，现在还在纠结是不是要撤搞换一家投呢 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
270求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
347求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
280求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
药学305求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
材料考研调剂
已经有18人回复
-
085501机械专硕 302分 不挑专业求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
085404 293求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
312求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
262求调剂
已经有14人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- SCI投稿过程总结、投稿状态解析、拒稿后对策及接受后期相关问答
已经有142人回复
- SCI投稿过程总结
已经有124人回复
- 从拒稿到小修的过程-真实经历与大家分享
已经有26人回复
zy1014zm
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 11.4
- 散金: 595
- 帖子: 392
- 在线: 46.5小时
- 虫号: 6481720
- 注册: 2017-05-09
- 专业: 制造系统与自动化
4楼2017-07-20 03:18:35
byq123
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 92 (初中生)
- 金币: 9866.2
- 散金: 120
- 红花: 18
- 沙发: 4
- 帖子: 2029
- 在线: 1647.8小时
- 虫号: 6038009
- 注册: 2017-03-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 通信理论与系统
2楼2017-07-01 11:27:29
|
祝福 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
3楼2017-07-01 19:00:35
5楼2017-07-20 05:50:51
10
