24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 3809  |  回复: 12
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者zhuziqing56将赠送您 3 个金币

zhuziqing56

新虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] fuel 申诉 已有3人参与

三个审稿人,两个意见还可以,另外一个不同。编辑给的拒稿,麻烦大神们看看,我想申诉一下,你们看可以吗?谢谢




Reviewers' comments:


Reviewer #1: Amendment
This paper addresses an interesting topic. It can deserve publication in Fuel. However, prior to publication, the authors should:

1) Extend the application of the theoretical equation to more fuels;
2) Reduce the number of tables (11 is a too large number);
3) Improve the English language throughout the manuscript.




Reviewer #2: Do not publish

Authors of this manuscript present analysis to estimate the lower and upper flammability limits of some hydrocarbons up to C4. They show improved predictions with the analysis but in a rambling fashion and with lots of tables. Manuscript is poorly written and low on data comparison. I noted many instances where great improvement is must. I provide following comments in the hope that the manuscript will be improved as suggested.

*     Why would it be necessary to take help from previous publications if the authors are confident that their results improve on previous ones? Considering that the manuscript has been cited for similarity with published sources, a line-by-line identification by the authors regarding the changes they have made after the test by CrossCheck is absolutely essential.
*     Authors state "...the group contribution method based on molecular structure. (The latter method) requires a large amount of experimental data measured at different temperature to build the model, which limits the use of the latter". This statement should have been qualified.
*     Why CAFT is introduced instead of Tad? Authors should remove CAFT and use Tad throughout as it is always a calculated quantity.
*     Use of "t" for temperature is discouraged. Use "T" instead.
*     Authors summarize on page 15, lines 45-48 that "this paper develops theoretical method to estimate the temperature dependence of flammability limits". What would they consider for introducing the pressure dependence in their analysis?
*     Authors do not offer any comments on including hydrogen. They should have declared at the onset why hydrogen is excluded and should have stated reasons for the same.
*     Figure 2 and 3 show not much data. Surely, the lower and upper flammability limits would have been determined in other studies. Is it possible to show more extensive comparison instead of only one reference?
*     Figure 4: The comparison has not been extended to higher hydrocarbons. Why?
*     Entries in column # 3 of Table 4 should be written appropriately with brackets. Avoid using (*) as a multiplication sign.
*     Too much data has been packed off into the tables. Much of the information contained in tables can be grouped into one table. For example,
         o     Combine Table 4 and 5
         o     Combine Table 6 and 10
         o     Combine Table 8 and 11


Reviewer #4: Amendment
The paper presents a method for the estimation of flammability limits of light hydrocarbons as a function of temperature. The authors propose a reformulation of the Burgess Wheeler relationship based on a more precise thermochemical analysis. The paper gives new insights and can be published. Few comments and questions are below. The authors should remove reference to a "kinetic" analysis or effect since no kinetic is actually used. English should be checked for an easier understanding in some places.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

liucao1234

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

十年杀猪

reviewer2说到相似性检测CrossCheck,干嘛还要求逐行辨识?是不是怀疑你抄袭了啊? 如果在这点上能有把握申诉一下求个修改很有希望。

[ 发自手机版 https://muchong.com/3g ]
Ratherthanlove,thanmoney,thanfaith,thanfame,thanfairness,givemethetruth.
4楼2017-08-29 21:46:34
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

paperhunter

荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)

还没想好

优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
zhuziqing56: 金币+2, ★★★很有帮助 2017-08-30 11:24:28
一般编辑会站在审稿人一边,因此大多数情况下申诉的效率不如修改后重投或者改投,只有在拒稿的审稿人存在明显错误的情况下申诉才有翻盘的可能。
咱也是有组织的人了...
5楼2017-08-29 22:21:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

liucao1234

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

十年杀猪

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
引用回帖:
10楼: Originally posted by zhuziqing56 at 2017-08-30 11:26:23
技术审查的时候,编辑说重复率高,主要是引用自己的文章太多,他让改一下,我改完提交后,送审了...

祝福,至少给你明确了修改方向,修改后不论投哪里肯定有希望了,有的时候等半年什么都没有就悲剧了!
Ratherthanlove,thanmoney,thanfaith,thanfame,thanfairness,givemethetruth.
11楼2017-08-31 10:10:57
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

melody

荣誉版主 (文坛精英)

生存、生活、生命

2楼2017-08-29 21:09:04
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhuziqing56

新虫 (初入文坛)

As indicated in the reviewer's comments, one reviewer points out some concerns and does not agree the publication of your submission. Fuel policy is to publish the high quality paper. In view of the comments and recommendations made, I have decided that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication.


编辑的原话
3楼2017-08-29 21:41:34
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
6楼2017-08-29 23:05:37
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

旋风马

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

Biomass pretreatment, Biomass Pyrolysis and Gasification, Biochar production and application
7楼2017-08-30 00:42:10
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

虫卜1988

新虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
没意义。还不如换杂志。我以前也申诉过一次。没用。

[ 发自手机版 https://muchong.com/3g ]
8楼2017-08-30 03:04:35
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhuziqing56

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by paperhunter at 2017-08-29 22:21:46
一般编辑会站在审稿人一边,因此大多数情况下申诉的效率不如修改后重投或者改投,只有在拒稿的审稿人存在明显错误的情况下申诉才有翻盘的可能。

按照意见修改后,重投fuel,可以吗
9楼2017-08-30 06:24:50
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhuziqing56

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by liucao1234 at 2017-08-29 21:46:34
reviewer2说到相似性检测CrossCheck,干嘛还要求逐行辨识?是不是怀疑你抄袭了啊? 如果在这点上能有把握申诉一下求个修改很有希望。

技术审查的时候,编辑说重复率高,主要是引用自己的文章太多,他让改一下,我改完提交后,送审了
10楼2017-08-30 11:26:23
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 zhuziqing56 的主题更新
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] 关于豆爷回答的JTJC与%2F数量 +3 yang182083 2026-08-06 4/200 2026-08-07 11:07 by 虫友是什么虫
[基金申请] 基金中了 +11 laoda193707 2026-08-06 11/550 2026-08-07 10:54 by TT和NN
[基金申请] filecode +14 等待解的谜 2026-08-06 18/900 2026-08-07 10:13 by naalan7001
[基金申请] 听说今天filecode变了 +21 布布和一二 2026-08-06 44/2200 2026-08-07 10:11 by 布布和一二
[基金申请] 固定端突然变了,今天 +4 archvillain 2026-08-06 8/400 2026-08-07 08:06 by 带你看大海
[基金申请] filecode +8 布布和一二 2026-08-06 11/550 2026-08-06 20:41 by tangpu318
[基金申请] 大家散了吧,后缀研究没有意义,别浪费时间了,过好目前的每一天,不要焦虑 +5 Tide man 2026-08-06 6/300 2026-08-06 20:19 by 苏知砚
[基金申请] 求各位大神看下 100+6 hpkpkpkp 2026-08-05 33/1650 2026-08-06 14:49 by zhiyanjiang
[教师之家] 咨询面上基金 +4 李长云 2026-07-31 7/350 2026-08-06 11:20 by 李长云
[基金申请] 影响面上的因素 +8 布布和一二 2026-08-05 11/550 2026-08-06 10:41 by 宝贝虫子
[基金申请] 8月时间戳变的,举个手。玩一下,释放压力 +9 archvillain 2026-08-04 11/550 2026-08-05 20:06 by wlwhappy
[基金申请] 面上再次挂了,太难了,躺也躺不了,倦也卷不过,小学校之殇! +22 低垂的野花 2026-07-31 30/1500 2026-08-05 18:03 by 低垂的野花
[基金申请] 好消息?这个有何含义??? +8 Tide man 2026-08-05 10/500 2026-08-05 16:14 by xmuxiaoyu
[考博] 【2027博士申请】纳米药物递送方向 20+3 13586093586 2026-08-03 4/200 2026-08-05 09:59 by lfy8008
[基金申请] 有没有H口的?有收到消息的吗? +3 超级海虾 2026-08-04 3/150 2026-08-04 17:26 by 学教育滴
[论文投稿] 十年后又回来了,论文投稿求助 +3 哈哈114477 2026-08-01 3/150 2026-08-04 15:40 by tegsgjy20
[基金申请] 纯娱乐,不喜欢勿喷 +7 Tide man 2026-08-04 10/500 2026-08-04 15:10 by loufangrui
[基金申请] 面上提前没消息,有中的吗 +14 archvillain 2026-08-02 18/900 2026-08-04 14:42 by archvillain
[基金申请] 娱乐 +4 Tide man 2026-08-03 4/200 2026-08-04 11:51 by wgch518
[基金申请] 什么时候能放榜呀? +3 Jacob678 2026-08-03 3/150 2026-08-03 16:14 by gltch
信息提示
请填处理意见