24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (1870)
>虫友互识 (84)
>导师招生 (31)
>论文投稿 (26)
>文献求助 (25)
>基金申请 (23)
>考研 (23)
>硕博家园 (21)
>考博 (21)
>公派出国 (21)
>找工作 (20)
>休闲灌水 (19)
>教师之家 (18)
>博后之家 (16)
>有机交流 (15)
>论文道贺祈福 (14)

返回列表

ming815zhao

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 3 (幼儿园)
金币: 2336.6
散金: 1568
帖子: 309
在线: 442.1小时
虫号: 530198
注册: 2008-03-21
性别: GG
专业: 催化化学

[求助] ACS审稿意见 —— 如何答复？已有1人参与

投了一票ACS的文章，其中一个审稿人（意见是小修）给了比较外围的评论。
请各位高手指点一下，评审意见的准确意思是什么？如何答复比较妥当？
万分感谢！

Most importantly to be of the practical significance that they authors are talking about, the materials not only need to be supported, but supported on large particles, typically mm in size. One of the pressing issues in nanoparticle catalyst syntheses is how can the interior pores of 10A or so be wetted by nanoparticles of similar size at a mm distance within the particle. Using fine powder supports gets around this issue but it is not a fair comparison. In most cases, one would make an eggshell on a larger particle support and this could definitely limit how much material can be placed on the support without having large particles easily agglomerated. This is a key issue in there type of materials and it is not touched on in this paper. So in summary some of the data presented here is interesting, but the syntheses is not really scaleable to very large quantity catalyst formulation and the supports used are also not ones that can be used for real applications. So there is a bridge that must be crossed and I would have liked to have seen that described or worked on if this is going to be rated as a top 20% paper. So the beginning of an excellent study is here but there is much still lacking. The journal will decide if this is enough to meet their publication criteria- it just seems to me that this paper is directed toward practical applications and in that vein, it falls short of addressing some key issues.

回复此楼