24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

linsoklove

金虫 (著名写手)

应助: 9 (幼儿园)
金币: 2259.7
散金: 7930
红花: 7
帖子: 2022
在线: 186.6小时
虫号: 3386277
注册: 2014-08-28
专业: 工程热物理相关交叉领域

[求助] 各位帮我分析理解一下审稿意见，让我知道该怎么回答已有4人参与

今天终于收到了审稿意见，但是由于英文不太好，也由于太过于紧张了吧，现在一脸茫然。还希望各位帮我分析一下该如何回答。审稿意见如下：
Comments from the editors and reviewers:
-Reviewer 1
-
Strengths:
The problem shown in the manuscript is interesting and well defined. The solving method may be interesting for other researchers. The application of results may lead to increase heat transfer capabilities which is within the scope of the Journal. The CFD simulation is compared with some experimental results. Most of the model parameters are explained.
Weaknesses:
The main interest for readers would be the simulation method which is described, but some more details could be given such as mesh details (the picture is informative, but number of cells, cell and shape in all regions could be given explicitly).
The comparison with the experiment is shown only for offset angle, is it possible to address also at least qualitatively the thickness of the layer? Maybe for one case only but some remarks could be important for other researchers.
The minimal flow for sur wetting could be simulated using this method?
There is a small mistyped number in Fig 3b experiment shall be 200 instead of 100.

-Reviewer 2

- Dear Author,

This is well-written article that does identify an important gap in xxxx. There has been a few researches on xxxx reported in open literature. However, the article would be significantly improved with the addition of more review of the xxxx. This is because the review of the literature is not thorough for study of xxxx; because the author only referred to two articles which were published in 2014 and 2007, which has a big gap almost 10 years.

The author did not critically review xxxx in the Introduction. This helps to show that this parameter is important to characterize xxxx.

The details of my comments and suggestions are attached with this reviewer comments.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急已经有9人回复
广西大学-广州大学招聘博士后欢迎广大优秀人才！！！已经有6人回复
两块石头已经有5人回复
面上没中，邀请各位路过的虫友分析一下分数已经有8人回复
哈尔滨工业大学韩晓军教授课题组招收2027年硕士推免生及博士研究生已经有3人回复
找导师已经有8人回复
国社科又开始会评了，不知道这次命运如何已经有14人回复
科研人应该花精力去思考如何解决问题，而不是去凝练问题已经有14人回复
要骂人了，新模版改版就是要淡化问题凝练这种虚的东西，结果有个评委还在说凝练得不够已经有17人回复
学科评审组评审是指会评吗？已经有5人回复

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

【转】裸奔的Barabasi 已经有10人回复

1楼 2017-09-01 17:29:15

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

专家经验: +14
SEPI: 1
应助: 14603 (教授)
贵宾: 11.659
金币: 345452
散金: 9262
红花: 1423
沙发: 2016
帖子: 127555
在线: 8880.9小时
虫号: 971012
注册: 2010-03-14
专业: 环境工程
管辖: 论文投稿

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
linsoklove: 金币+50, ★★★很有帮助 2017-09-02 06:37:04

第一个审稿人的意见比较专业和具体，第二个审稿人的意见相对笼统，主要针对引言，要求增加引用的文章数量。建议楼主贴出不懂的部分，以便进行有针对性的回答。