24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4481)
>基金申请 (535)
>文献求助 (318)
>虫友互识 (294)
>休闲灌水 (235)
>导师招生 (208)
>硕博家园 (202)
>论文投稿 (138)
>考研 (109)
>考博 (104)
>公派出国 (76)
>教师之家 (75)
>博后之家 (65)
>论文道贺祈福 (65)
>招聘信息布告栏 (40)
>SciFinder/Reaxys (37)

返回列表

郭梓歌

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 498.5
帖子: 221
在线: 59小时
虫号: 3721706

[交流] 拒稿，重投？

大修后拒稿，一审，一正一负

系统上显示reject，

但是编辑信里这么写的：

Dear Mr. XXX XXX,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below. You can improve the work based on the reviewers' reports and submit your improved work as a new submission. The comments made by the reviewers should be better taken of.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXX

Reviewer #3: The manuscript performs an experimental study on XXXXXXXXXXXX. The authors developed a XXXXXX model and tried to explain the oscillations showed in XXXXXXX. Besides those comments raised by other reviewers, I think, the authors need to clarify the major issues listed below:
(1) The biggest problem for this work may be the organization of the paper. Clearly, there are both experimental results and theoretical analysis in the presents. That is, two approaches are used. But just when we look at the titles of the sections for the parts of results and discussion, it is difficult to tell the results from experiments or from the stratified model. The authors are encouraged to rework and reorganized the part of results and discussion to make it clear.
(2) There is a feeling that the experimental measurements of the mean bed porosity lose some "connection" with the results predicted by the theoretical stratified model. This can be seen from the comparison of XX and XX. As clearly shown in XXX, the XXXXX fluctuates in a small amplitude when D/d>2.5. But in Fig. 7(a), the authors only provide the predicted smooth values of mean porosity (by the theoretical stratified model) in small range of XXXX, although one may find fluctuating results for other variables of XXX at XXXXX. What about the predicted XXXXXXXX (by the theoretical XXXXX model) at higher XXXXXXX? So I would suggest the authors perform a direct comparison of the measured and predicted XXXXXXXX, to demonstrate if the measurements and predictions could really fluctuate in a similar pace or a pattern showing a correlation.
(3) It seems there are data repeatedly presenting for the parameter XXXXX in Fig. 7(b), 8(b) and 9, although they are shown in different range of D/d.
(4) Two same symbols of 'D' in Table 2. Which one is for cylinder column diameter and which one for particle diameter？ There may be some typos here.
Based on the above comments, I can NOT recommend the acceptance of the present paper for publication in this journal.

这样的意见算不算reject&resubmit？重投需要注意哪些问题呢？

回复此楼