24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【奖励】本帖被评价46次，作者wanlaifengji增加金币 34.25 个

当前主题已经存档。

wanlaifengji

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 4995.9
帖子: 2898
在线: 163.3小时
虫号: 423391

[资源] 文章被接受,贴详细投稿历程及感悟

前天收到编辑来信,一篇文章被接受了,影响因子刚过2,虽然不是很高,还是让人高兴.主要是这个领域不是博士期间工作的继续,做起来总有种摸着石头过河的感觉.回顾这篇文章的投稿历程,有些感悟,写出来与各位虫友交流:
大体的投稿历程:
3.18初投过了几天助理编辑回信说格式要改,这个比较意外,因为以前有篇文章在该期刊上发过,格式是一样的,看来期刊的投稿要求也会变,没办法,改.
3.23投出,3.25编辑处理
4.10收到审稿意见 (有些内容用符号代替):
Dear Dr LLLL
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
……
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: The paper is acceptable with major technical revision.
The authors report the first theoretical calculations of AB, revealing three equilibrium structures, the most stable structure of which has an interaction between the hydrogen atom with a hydride character and the aluminum atom. The transition states of the isomerization between the three structures are also calculated. Solvent effects on the structures of the three isomers are also predicted, even though the effects are concluded to be small. These findings are of importance as basic knowledge about XXX of group 13 elements, which were not investigated. Therefore, the reviewer thinks that the manuscript is worth publishing in the Journal of ... Before publication, the following remarks should be addressed:
1)The last sentence in the introduction is not suitable for an introduction and should be moved to the conclusion.
2)p2, line 5 from the bottom: The ground states of CC are usually triplet, while those of GG are usually singlet.  Therefore, the term "Similar" here is not appropriate. Perhaps they should use the term "Unlike", instead of "Similar to". References concerning each of the ground states should be cited.
3) p3, line 9: The reviewer thinks that 0.006 Å is within an acceptable margin of error and is not worth discussing. Therefore, the phrase starting from "indicating" should be revised.
4) p3, line 5 from the bottom: The reviewer cannot understand that complex 2, having a very weak interaction between the Ge and Al atoms, has the obvious character of a GG. In contrast, he can understand that complex 1 has the obvious character of a GG. Therefore, additional explanations about the structure of complex 2 should be demonstrated.
5) Before consideration of the structures of the present complex, the reviewer thinks that the transition states for the formation of the complex from A and B should be discussed, because the complex is generated from A and B.

Reviewer #2: Routine calculations are performed for the three isomers of AB and isomerization of these isomers. However, this may be publishable, after the following points are made clearer.
(1) Only three isomers are located for AB. It seems that there is one more isomer that originates from the exchange of one hydrogen and the Cl1 atom in complex 1. Did the authors perform the full search?
(2) Do the authors assume that complexes 1-3 are formed by the reaction of A and B? If so, the reaction path should be presented.
(3) It is suggested that complex 2 is the predominant form of AB. The authors should mention how complex 2 is efficient as a cyclopropanating reagent, since this is an important goal of this manuscript.
(4) P. 2, Line 5 from the bottom. Obviously, the ground state of CC is not singlet but triplet.
(5) For binding energies, could the authors present also the BSSE (basis-set-superposition-error) corrected values.

下面是4.13修改回信:
Dear Professor TTT:
Thank you very much for giving us a chance to respond to the Referees’ reviews and we would like to thank the referees for their nice comments on our manuscript. We have considered the comments of Referees’ and made some changes in the manuscript. Our changes and response are presented in the following. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this paper. Should there be any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact me by e-mail at …
1. Response to comment (1) of Reviewer #1
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the last sentence in the introduction has been moved to the conclusion.
2. Response to comment (2) of Reviewer #1 and comment (4) of Reviewer #2:
Considering the suggestions of Reviewers’, the term "Similar to " has been changed to be the term "Unlike" and two References [49] and [50] have been added.
3. Response to comment (3) of Reviewer #1:
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the sentence “The G-A bond length of complex 1 is 0.006A shorter than that of Y, indicating that the interaction between G and A in complex 1 is a bit stronger than in Y.” has been changed to be “The G-A bond length of complex 1 is only 0.006A shorter than that of Y, indicating that the interaction between G and A in complex 1 is similar to that in Y.”
4. Response to comment (4) of Reviewer #1
We thank the reviewer’s criticism and indeed the previous depiction was not appropriate. Therefore we deleted the sentence “indicating that complex 2 has obvious character of g...”. We do not think that the deletion affect the description for complex 2 and influence the conclusion of the manuscript.
5. Response to comment (5) of Reviewer #1 and comment (2) of Reviewer #2:
We understand the Reviewers’ suggestions. However, we did not add any content about the raction of A and B. The reasons are following:
a) Though the germylenoid AB could be considered as the complex of A with B, the reaction of A and B are not easy and in fact it is not a feasible way to generating germylenoid AB by using the reaction of A and B. (until now there are not any stable gg being prepared by experiments) So we do not think it is necessary to study the reaction path of A and B.
b) In previous similar studies on cc, ss, and gg, the reactions of A and B had been not studied. We do not think it would influence the conclusions of the present manuscripte without the study on the reaction of A and B.
6. Response to comment (1) of Reviewer #2
We performed the full search. The calculations indicated that the possible “isomer” which the Reviewer #2 suggested has two imaginary frequencies and we conclude that it is not a isomer of AB.
7. Response to comment (3) of Reviewer #2
The main goal of the manuscript is the exploring on the possible structure of the germylenoid AB in gas phase and some solvents. Of course, “which structure is an efficient cyclopropanating reagent and how the cyclopropanation reactions occur” are interesting topics. However, we consider these interesting topics are outside of the scale of the present manuscript. So we did not add any interrelated content.
8. Response to comment (5) of Reviewer #2
The binding energies did not include the BSSE corrected energy values. Considering the Reviewer’s comment, we calculated the BSSE energies of structure 1, 2, and 3 at the QCISD/6-311++G(d, p) level.  And we found that the BSSE energies of structure 1, 2, and 3 are (in a.u.) 0.0119951, 0.0111510, and 0.0150428, respectively. These BSSE energies indeed influence the absolute values of the binding energies. However, the order of the binding energies of structure 1, 2, and 3 did not change. We think the important is not the absolute values but the order of the binding energies. Without the BSSE energies the main conclusions of the present manuscript will not change. Therefore, in the revised manuscript we did not add any content about the BSSE energy.
…
4.14编辑来信提了建议:
I have reviewed your revised manuscript.
It is advisable that the authors may incorporate their responses #5 and #6 into the revised manuscript in one way or another.

当天修回:
Dear Professor TTT:
Thank you very much for giving us a chance to revise the manuscript. We have considered your suggestions and made some changes in the manuscript. Our changes are presented in the following…..
1. About the Response #5:
In the last paragraph of Page 2, we added some sentences “Though the AB could be considered as the complex of A with B, the reaction of A and B are not easy and in fact it is not a feasible way to generating germylenoid ABby using the reaction of A and B.  Therefore, in the present work we did not study the reaction path of A and B.”
2. About the Response #6:
In the first paragraph of “3.1 Equilibrium structures in gas phase” (on Page 3), we added one sentences “We performed the full search on the possible structures of AB and in the paper only the equilibrium structures will be reported.”
4.21收到接受信.
Dear Dr LLL,
I am pleased to confirm that your paper "Theoretical investigation on …" has been accepted for publication in Journal of ……
…
几点感受:
1.很重要的一点,有些常识性的东西不能犯错误.本文初稿中就出现了常识性错误,结果两个审稿人都看出来了[comment (2) of Reviewer #1 and comment (4) of Reviewer #2]. 好在审稿人比较仁慈,没一下子毙掉.
2.审稿意见中,容易改的一定要改. 比如comment (1) of Reviewer #1.
3.有些意见不好改,特别是涉及到添加很多内容时,这个时候修改就看技巧了.记得读博士时导师曾说过,审稿人要求添加的如果麻烦一般不会添加,因为一是要另外做很多工作(这些工作不一定好做),二是很可能会严重影响文章结构(这一点我个人感觉非常讨厌). 修改回信中的Response #4,5,7均属此类. 刚看到审稿意见时感觉不好改,先别着急做或者去硬改,先放放,冷静一下,如果决定不做,想办法委婉的拒绝.
4.如果涉及到添加的内容好做,一定做,但不一定添进去.如Response #8.
5.编辑的建议一定正确对待.比如后来编辑的建议,一定不能拒绝的.
6.文章内容要新,这一点虽是老生常谈,但永不过时.
一家之言,希望对各位稍有启发.祝各位科研顺利!

24小时热门版块排行榜

[资源] 文章被接受,贴详细投稿历程及感悟

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

» 猜你喜欢

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

能否告知杂质名称呢谢谢楼主！

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

顶

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励