| 查看: 3544 | 回复: 12 | |||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者zhuziqing56将赠送您 3 个金币 | |||
| 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 | |||
[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 Reviewer #2: Do not publish Authors of this manuscript present analysis to estimate the lower and upper flammability limits of some hydrocarbons up to C4.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
全日制（定向）博士
已经有5人回复
-
假如你的研究生提出不合理要求
已经有10人回复
-
萌生出自己或许不适合搞科研的想法，现在跑or等等看？
已经有4人回复
-
Materials Today Chemistry审稿周期
已经有4人回复
-
参与限项
已经有3人回复
-
实验室接单子
已经有4人回复
-
对氯苯硼酸纯化
已经有3人回复
-
求助:我三月中下旬出站，青基依托单位怎么办？
已经有12人回复
-
所感
已经有4人回复
-
要不要辞职读博？
已经有7人回复
paperhunter
荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)
还没想好
-
专家经验: +14 - SEPI: 1
- 应助: 14603 (教授)
- 贵宾: 11.659
- 金币: 345462
- 散金: 9262
- 红花: 1423
- 沙发: 2016
- 帖子: 127553
- 在线: 8880.4小时
- 虫号: 971012
- 注册: 2010-03-14
- 专业: 环境工程
- 管辖: 论文投稿
5楼2017-08-29 22:21:46
melody
荣誉版主 (文坛精英)
生存、生活、生命
- 应助: 72 (初中生)
- 贵宾: 7.248
- 金币: 22081.7
- 散金: 8842
- 红花: 48
- 沙发: 2
- 帖子: 12188
- 在线: 665.7小时
- 虫号: 68832
- 注册: 2005-05-19
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 导航、制导与传感技术
- 管辖: 论文投稿
2楼2017-08-29 21:09:04
|
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
liucao1234
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
十年杀猪
- 应助: 253 (大学生)
- 金币: 5887.2
- 散金: 479
- 红花: 35
- 帖子: 1065
- 在线: 609.1小时
- 虫号: 4131326
- 注册: 2015-10-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 煤地质学
4楼2017-08-29 21:46:34