| 查看: 1531 | 回复: 4 | ||||
vect至尊木虫 (著名写手)
|
[求助]
这个大修后二审的意见还有戏吗？ 已有1人参与
|
|
暑假在阅读文献的时间发现湾湾某学者提出的一个新的方法存在致命的错误，所以撰写了一篇评论的文章。一般而言，一事一议就可以了。没想到这个审稿人特别与众不同。估计是一审意见中他让本人提供某个方程的特解，认为十分有意义，本人反对说这个工作已经几年前有人做过了，并提供了出处。现在二审回来，又提了一堆问题，而且难以满足。如提供更多的类似错误，并分类等等，这个显然不现实的。另外称本人的行文不够吸引人，真无法修改。英文大修的时候时间已经叫一个外文系的老师修改过了，还是英文有问题。我相信非英语母语的没有办法否定，但也无法修改。最后编辑没有删除邮箱，不知道什么意思？ Drawbacks: The manuscript is not academically-sounded and fails to possess the sufficient quality to be published in a reputed journal. Regardless of language, the manuscript has also not even been written in a fascinating manner. Due to the significance expressed above, I sought to provide an opportunity for the authors to do their best in revising the manuscript by adding some more materials to make it as fascinating and informative as possible to the readers. But the revised version does not turn out to be the case. It can be good homework for undergraduate and even some Master's students to demonstrate that any results already presented in journals are not guaranteed to be correct, even if published in the most prestigious journals, even if they undergo double-blind peer review process, even if they have analytical scope whose correctness evaluation is much more traceable than the numerical and experimental ones! At the end, if the editor's decision goes to the publication of the manuscript, I would recommend him/her to ask the authors at least to polish their manuscript more through: _ presenting a higher number of published papers in which the obtaind multi-soliton solutions are not correct, along with writing their correspoding NPDE equatios and mentioning the analytical techniques applied to solve those equations and extract the wrong solutions. _ It's a good idea to categorize the type of mistakes made in those papers to get wrong analytical solutions. _ It's a good idea that the authors manage to have a short section of Discussion for discussing the potential analytical techniques which can be employed to successfully solve the ZK equation and extract its multi-soliton solutions. _ Improving the English, writing style, as well as organizing the manuscript much better. ＃＃＃＃@gmial.com |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料科学与工程320求调剂，080500
已经有9人回复
-
0703化学调剂 348分
已经有10人回复
-
307求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
一志愿211，0703化学305分求调剂
已经有15人回复
-
284求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
材料工程调剂
已经有5人回复
-
287求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
362求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
273求调剂
已经有42人回复
2楼2018-10-21 23:39:46
caotulang2
新虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 444.7
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 162
- 在线: 13小时
- 虫号: 1596195
- 注册: 2012-02-02
- 专业: 信号理论与信号处理
|
错误还能分类，这个确实有点奇怪的逻辑，这个可能做不来。不过他让你找类似错误的目的应该是提升论文的意义或者重要性。再加上你说的行文不够吸引人。总得来说应该是文章在阐述论文贡献或者意义上有问题，没有让评审觉得你的工作是有价值的。个人建议把introduction重新写。 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
3楼2018-10-22 06:58:43
nono2009
超级版主 (文学泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
专家经验: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 应助: 28684 (院士)
- 贵宾: 513.911
- 金币: 2555230
- 散金: 27828
- 红花: 2148
- 沙发: 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在线: 65200.9小时
- 虫号: 827383
- 注册: 2009-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
- 管辖: 科研家筹备委员会
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
vect(liouzhan654代发): 金币+1, 感谢交流 2018-10-22 12:30:55
vect: 金币+4, ★有帮助, 刚刚接受，其实也做好被拒的打算了。所以大修的时候拒绝修改，只修改了行文结构。真没想到 2018-11-21 09:06:13
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
vect(liouzhan654代发): 金币+1, 感谢交流 2018-10-22 12:30:55
vect: 金币+4, ★有帮助, 刚刚接受，其实也做好被拒的打算了。所以大修的时候拒绝修改，只修改了行文结构。真没想到 2018-11-21 09:06:13
| 通常这种评论论文都会让原论文的作者评审，而这时候就看人品了，有些研究者心胸狭窄，对于评论其工作的论文百般刁难、甚至是使用一些有失风度的词语（例如“完全是外行”之类）。说实话，现在的SCI论文中小错误比比皆是，垃圾论文也不在少数。所以，除非是对本专业有重大意义的修正，否则就不必去深究了。 |
» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
Math露珠4楼2018-10-22 09:10:07
Math露珠
木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 10 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 7841.6
- 散金: 2548
- 红花: 123
- 沙发: 33
- 帖子: 8870
- 在线: 885.7小时
- 虫号: 4010226
- 注册: 2015-08-07
- 专业: 常微分方程与动力系统
5楼2019-04-02 15:59:20
10