| 查看: 1133 | 回复: 7 | |||
| 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 | |||
[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» 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8人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
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13人回复
-
麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见（F口面上）
已经有13人回复
-
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有6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
-
基金系统什么内容也没有
已经有10人回复
-
学科评审组评审是指会评吗？
已经有5人回复
3楼2018-05-31 16:04:21
5楼2018-05-31 16:23:50
6楼2018-05-31 16:24:31
简单回复
物理所院士8楼
2018-05-31 16:31
回复
40428643(金币+1): 谢谢参与
祝福 发自小木虫Android客户端
润色论文2楼
2018-05-31 15:58
回复
40428643(金币+1): 谢谢参与
顶 发自小木虫IOS客户端
奋斗0梦7楼
2018-05-31 16:26
回复
40428643(金币+1): 谢谢参与
。 发自小木虫Android客户端
loyunpo4楼
2018-05-31 16:08
回复
40428643(金币+1): 谢谢参与
好 发自小木虫Android客户端
30