| 查看: 6519 | 回复: 30 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者hhmmyyy将赠送您 10 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 | ||
hhmmyyy木虫 (正式写手)
|
[求助]
JMCA 被拒了，申诉有希望么 已有3人参与
|
|
|
下面是两个审稿人的意见，编辑给据掉了，请问大家rebuttle的可能性大么。因为觉得审稿人的问题都比较好回答。 Referee: 1 Comments to the Author In this manuscript, the authors had proven the 。。。 technique is a facile method synthesizing the 。。。which can exhibit a improved photoactivity. While, I have some questions regarding the description, and if the questions can be solved firstly, the quality of this project can be better. 1. I don't think the 。。。 technique is a significant progress in synthesizing 。。。, because it is very expensive as compared to hydrothermal method. Especially, the sample prepared by this technique has a lower performance than the conventional ones. 2. The authors had claimed the 。。。 is a big problem in the samples prepared by other methods. But in the manuscript, there is no proof to demonstrate the advantage of 。。。 in controlling the doping positions. The declamation should be revised. 3. There is no direct proof proving the surface area is larger, and which is the control sample. 4. SEM images should be larger and more proving the unique morphology. 5. TEM is another efficient path proving the morphology specificity. Referee: 2 Comments to the Author In this paper。。。 The nanostructure is interesting. However, some points still need to be clarified to improve the work. 1. HRTEM is suggested to characterize the detailed structure of single nanoworm and deduce the reaction mechanism. 2. The authors claim that the 。。。 in this paper is several times of the most reported bare 。。。 photoanodes under the same conditions (reference 14, 20, 24, 38). However, some reported photocurrent is far better than that in this paper. (Science 2014, 343, 990) The authors should summarize the reported photocurrent comprehensively. 3. In figure 2, the cross-sectional SEM images (inset) and scale bars are too small to read. 审稿人的意见都很容易回答的，有些是观点是审稿人误解的，例如第一个人的第二条审稿意见，也是误解了我一句话的意思。第二个审稿人说我没有好好的比较性能的这一条意见，我已经加了限制条件说是单层改性的材料了，审稿人举例的那一篇science是3层的材料，本来就是不可以放在一起比较的。SEM的scale是排版的问题，改成单栏的就好了。这样的可以申诉么。 还是说审稿人只是代表性的提出了几个问题，根本就没有仔细的审稿呢，看起来像两个修稿，为什么会被拒呢。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有10人回复
-
filecode
已经有12人回复
-
filecode=后面第一个是大写字母
已经有4人回复
-
时间戳又变了8-15
已经有20人回复
-
小木虫上这么多卖论文的，真有人买论文么？感觉没必要啊
已经有13人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有58人回复
-
哪位老哥知道今年的国自然具体哪一天放榜？
已经有7人回复
-
关于Filecode分析方法
已经有13人回复
-
各位道友，我要去昆明玩几天，回来见。
已经有8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22人回复
» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)
bigjar
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1324.8
- 散金: 101
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 536
- 在线: 589.9小时
- 虫号: 523586
- 注册: 2008-03-12
- 专业: 药物化学
9楼2017-11-04 11:02:32
husheng564
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 34 (小学生)
- 金币: 6402.9
- 散金: 53
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 913
- 在线: 468.9小时
- 虫号: 1881696
- 注册: 2012-07-06
- 专业: 工业工程与管理
2楼2017-11-04 10:43:51
 本帖仅楼主可见 |
3楼2017-11-04 10:47:04
4楼2017-11-04 10:47:59
