24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

leeying

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

C-EPI: 1
应助: 250 (大学生)
贵宾: 0.25
金币: 19939.2
散金: 100
红花: 12
帖子: 3568
在线: 617.6小时
虫号: 73615
注册: 2005-06-09
性别: GG
专业: 催化化学

[交流] 投Chem. Commun.被拒，但意见中肯，请大家看看我是该怎么做？（附审稿意见）

投Chem. Commun.被拒，但意见中肯，请大家看看我是该怎么做？（附审稿意见）

投Chem. Commun.被拒，但意见中肯，请大家看看我是该怎么做？
我在实验过程中发现一个简单、有效的降解有机污染物的催化剂，写好论文后投稿到Chem. commun.。经历了50天的审稿时间，结果很残酷，论文被拒，但编辑给的意见中肯。现在我不知道是应该继续投通讯类文章呢，还是做的更深入后，发表一篇大文章，请大家帮我参考参考。
下面是审稿意见：
Dear Professor Li

Communication  Ref.: XXXX
Title : xxxxxxx

I apologise that the length of the review process on this occasion was longer than is usual for ChemComm.  Unfortunately, several referees were unable to provide reports, and so alternative referees had to be consulted.  I regret to inform you that the above manuscript has not been accepted for publication in ChemComm. The referees' reports are attached and give the reasons for this decision. It was highlighted that the work does not contain sufficient impact and is too specialised to justify publication in ChemComm.  I would encourage you to address the referees’ comments, and submit this work to a more specialised journal.  Please note that the acceptance rate for ChemComm is <30% of submitted manuscripts. Criteria for acceptance in ChemComm are that work should be original and significant, and of wide general appeal or exceptional interest in its specialised area.

I am sorry not to have better news for you on this occasion.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Badcock

**********************************************************

Mary Badcock, Assistant Editor
ChemComm,
Royal Society of Chemistry, Thomas Graham House,
Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0WF, UK
Tel +44 (0)1223 432434, Fax +44 (0)1223 420247

**********************************************************

Out now! ChemComm Chronicle – the new monthly e-newsletter for Chemical Communications. Sign up today at www.rsc.org/chemcomm

Are you job hunting? Or recruiting? Visit the new chemistryworldjobs.org

Report A

The information reported in this manuscript does not meet the criteria for publication in Chemical Communications.  The research is a routine application of a xxxx under oxidizing conditions to test for degradation of a dye. The information should be publishable, after revision as discussed below.  Some journals to consider: Waste Management, Catalysis Communications, Catalysis Letters, or Environmental Pollution Series B, Chemistry and Physics.

Editorial comments:

The structure of XXXX (now labelled Scheme 1) should be labelled Figure 1, unless other information is added to show the degradation pathway. It is not a Scheme as shown.

The physical state of the prepared catalyst should be described. Is it a suspension, solution, solid?

Can it be removed by filtration?

Because, in Figure 1 the dye is degraded in the trace labelled “No Catalyst” but does contain hydrogen peroxide, the title should include reference to hydrogen peroxide.  As I understand all reaction conditions in Figure 1 contain the peroxide.

In Figure 1. the use of “Catalyst” and “No Catalyst” is confusing especially “H2O2 (catalyst):” in the text that describes the reaction conditions. Control, Control plus XXX, Control plus XXX, and Control plus XXXX would be easier on the reader. A Table with the half-lives would be interesting. Form the insert in Figure 1, the reader can estimate a half-life of approximately nine hours for the control with peroxide compared to four hours for the control with XXXX. Is the reduction of the half-life significant?

Line 1 on page 2 Suggest use “Control reactions” rather than “Blank reactions.”

Figure 3 depicts three cycling runs but it was not clear how the catalyst was cycled.  Was the catalyst filtered and fresh reaction solution added. Was it as simple as adding starting amounts of RhB at time zero and again at four hours and eight hours? The plot in the first cycle does not correspond to the plot of disappearance of XXXX in Figure 1 that shows first-order degradation to almost baseline disappearance after four hours?  In Figure 3, disappearance was 90% after one hour and remained constant until the four hour event.

Report B

The work described here might be capable of being developed into an acceptable publication but I cannot see this being a ChemComm. As it stands it demonstrates that one dye is broken down at a faster rate (something like three times as fast) in the presence of the catalyst than in its absence. What is not demonstrated is whether the water quality is improved. It is the disappearance of colour from the water that is measured. It is not shown what compounds are produced in the degradation or how toxic these are. The authors have not explored this aspect.  What we need to know is the BOD of the water after catalysed treatment in comparison to the BOD achieved in its absence.

There are other problems with the paper. It is only halfway through it that we find that hydrogen peroxide is being used, though I had guessed that this might be the case. It would seem that just as good degradation can be achieved using the peroxide alone at pH 14. Admittedly we do not know how extensive is breakdown of the products of initial reaction under these conditions and we would need to neutralise this waste water before discharge but the presence of xxxxx and xxxxx would be avoided. It would also be useful to know what happens when the dye solution is passed through a biological filter or an activated sludge treatment works. Are these systems just as effective without needing to employ the catalyst?

The only way this submission can be made acceptable is if much more work were to be done on the breakdown products and it were to be shown that the results are equally applicable to all (or most) classes of dyes including phthalocyanines. Even so, the best publication medium would be in a technical journal.

回复此楼