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

40428643

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2.7
帖子: 3
在线: 3.6小时
虫号: 7585279

[交流] 2个审稿人意见有点不一致。请大伙给点思路，我应该怎么修改。

大家好，小弟刚投了一个2区sci论文，编辑给大修意见，2个审稿人意见有点不一致。请大伙给点思路，我应该怎么修改。
-Reviewer 1

- The authors examine the effect on magnetic lens properties of modifying the shape of the corners of the yoke. Not surprisingly, a small improvement is found. However, this result does not justify a full-length paper, a short note would be sufficient. Much of the introduction is very well known and it is not always accurate. Thus Glaser published his bell-shaped field before his book appeared in 1952. One major contribution to lens design is missing, "Practical lens design" by W.D. Riecke, in 'Magnetic Electron Lenses' (P.W. Hawkes, ed., Springer 1982).

I therefore recommend that the authors be encouraged to produce a much shorter paper or a conference abstract, giving only the results of their calculations.

-Reviewer 2
What reviewer suggests to the authors are the following.

This paper deals about an analysis method of magnetically saturated electron lenses without using a commercial software. This is a significant point to be published in Ultramicroscopy.

Historically, analytical methods for design electron lenses are changed to numerical methods, because analytical method cannot treat the magnetically saturated lenses. So that, if the analytical method can treat the magnetically saturated lenses, it can come back. An advantage of the analytical method is free. Simulation software are now commercially available but not free. So that, at present, only the people working on the lens design, can analyze electron lenses and people who have an interest but have no commercial　software cannot do analyze electron lenses. So that, it is very useful for usual people who can join a design of electron lens following this paper. However, authors don’t describe about things which are not their original points but necessary things what reader want to do a similar calculation following this paper. This is quite usual thing because Ultramicroscopy is an original Journal.

However, if a reader wants to do make a similar calculation following this paper, he or she must check other papers referenced in this paper about already known things. This must be uninterest work and need a lot of time. So that, reviewer recommends the authors to write all the things necessary for the analysis should be written within this paper. Original things should be written in main pages and already known things in Appendix. Then, reader can do analyze about their lenses only reading your paper without checking some paper or buy a commercial software.

回复此楼