| 查看: 3077 | 回复: 4 | ||||
jamescave007木虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
APL投稿20天，一个小修，一个认为理论论证不充分。怎么修改。 已有4人参与
|
|
两个审稿人意见如下。第一个很好回答。针对第二个审稿人的问题，我在修改说明信中做了很充分的理论与若干实验解释。但这些问题与文章题目以及主体不太相干。并且针对这个问题，已在准备另一篇文章。因此，整篇文章基本没修改就再次提交了。不知这样做是否会得到审稿人和编辑认可?是否需要在文章中做出详细解释?大家有什么好建议吗？ Reviewer Comments:? Reviewer #1 Evaluations:? Does this paper meet APL's standards: Yes? Is the paper scientifically sound with the assertions made and conclusions drawn well supported: Yes? Is the discussion of related work and associated references adequate?: Yes? Is the English satisfactory?: Yes? Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes? Is the paper well organized and understandable?: Yes? Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author(s)  :?This work presents a refinement of the well-studied InAs/GaSb SLS with an additional layer of InSb at a variable interval inside the GaSb region. It is shown through both theory and experiment that this is effective in extending the cut off wavelength of the SLS. As a result, the work is novel, useful, timely and of significant interest to the community working on SLS detectors. The work is furthermore clearly of exemplary technical quality.? As a result of the above, this reviewer recommends publication in APL.? One small revision is recommended, which is that Fig 3a is given with a linear scale for wavelength and a reciprocal scale for wavenumber, rather than the present vice versa. This would improve clarity in distinguishing the difference in the cut-off wavelength as claimed.? Reviewer #2 Evaluations:? Does this paper meet APL's standards: Yes? Is the paper scientifically sound with the assertions made and conclusions drawn well supported: No? Is the discussion of related work and associated references adequate?: No? Is the English satisfactory?: Yes? Is the title short, interesting, and descriptive of the contents?: Yes? Is the paper well organized and understandable?: Yes? Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author(s) :?I would like to thank authors for nice work. The manuscript discusses the approach and experimental results systematically. There are a few key details missing. I request authors to provide those details for the benefit of the T2SL community.? 1. In the first paragraph authors used the acronym including 'M' structure, please include a reference for M-structure.? 2. The argument given by author for high RmaxA value for design 5 is not convincing. Type-II superlattice material system is very sensitive to fabrication process. Are authors convinced that better performance is not due to device fabrication variations? It is not believable that design 5 and 6 will differ in RmaxA value by ~10. The SRH argument is a plausible one, but it can not justify a factor of 10 in the resistance-area product value for design 5 vs design 6.? 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 Appl Phys Lett |
» 猜你喜欢
什么时候开奖？
已经有4人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有27人回复
-
为什么余额宝的年化利率越来越低？主要原因有哪些？
已经有3人回复
-
2027广东省杰青
已经有9人回复
-
朋友圈看到的
已经有5人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有110人回复
-
明天放榜？
已经有5人回复
-
时间戳变了，能看出什么问题？
已经有11人回复
-
重要消息，中午系统在维护
已经有10人回复
-
投稿咨询
已经有6人回复
2楼2017-09-01 05:49:49
3楼2017-09-01 07:08:41
4楼2017-09-01 21:46:05
|
祝福 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
5楼2017-09-01 23:19:01
