| 查看: 1749 | 回复: 1 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者wumei34324将赠送您 10 个金币 | ||
wumei34324金虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
拉曼光谱鉴定中草药的文章投Analytical methods审稿后被拒 应该转投什么期刊 已有1人参与
|
|
|
拉曼光谱鉴定中草药的文章投Analytical methods审稿后被拒 请问应该转投什么期刊或者还有修改重投的机会吗？ 审稿意见如下： REVIEWER REPORT(S): Referee: 1 Comments to the Author . Comments are as following. 1.The authors mention in the article that there are ………… from different agricultural producing area to be discriminate: in the introduction,1st paragraph, Fujian, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Shandong and Anhui province are referred; and paragraph 2nd Jiangsu Province, Fujian Province, and Guizhou Province. However, in the study,…… used for Raman tests came from Jiangsu, Fujian, Shanxi and Hebei Province, which suggests a rationale inconsistency. The conclusion that these samples are capable of giving adequate and representative results are insufficient to be convincing based on the presented data. 2. The intrinsic chemical nature of ……from different regions that generates the apparent Raman spectrum differences is not discussed. 3. The conclusion stated that the model was satisfactory in light of a great identification rate, however, the “identification rate” is neither demonstrated from post-modeling studies nor presented in the current manuscript to support it. 4. The figures are difficult to understand based on the given figure legends. Moreover, the meaning of the coordinates, color-labeled lines as well as the number/repeats of the sample is not clarified. 5. There is an editing error of table 1, the heading of which shows in the top of page 6 but the body rows shows in page 7, spaced by long blocks of main text. 6. Abbreviations appear commonly in the manuscript. It is suggested they are listed separately from the main text. 7. The manuscript contains a number of spelling and grammatical errors and is hard to comprehend, in general. Referee: 2 Comments to the Author The application of signal preprocessing and chemometric methods for analysis of Raman spectra of……presented by the authors is well and sound. However, the criteria of novelty of methods used and clear societal impact required by this journal was deemed as not met by this reviewer. Regrettably, the standard of this paper is too routine to be accepted for publication. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
国自然评审意见
已经有8人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有14人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有11人回复
-
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有18人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有12人回复
-
有没有仍没收到信息的
已经有3人回复
-
导师吐槽：我怎么摊上了这么个极品研究生！
已经有8人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有11人回复
-
麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见（F口面上）
已经有9人回复
-
2026年叶企孙基金
已经有6人回复
更深的蓝
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 74 (初中生)
- 金币: 5254.5
- 散金: 109
- 红花: 12
- 帖子: 897
- 在线: 721.6小时
- 虫号: 522920
- 注册: 2008-03-12
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生化分析及生物传感
2楼2017-08-17 17:44:06
投票:
30