24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 3326  |  回复: 13

chuzhaoxiang

银虫 (小有名气)

[交流] International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 投稿交流已有8人参与

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 投稿交流

论文投稿2周后进入外审,3个月后收到系统自动发送的邮件说是外审已经结束,进入Ready for Decision状态,可现在这个状态已经持续49天了,想催又不敢催,怕悲剧了,所以请教一下各位,有类似投稿经验的交流一下。
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

asdaair

银虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
应该是编辑犹豫过给不给你修改的机会,所以拖了这么久。我感觉2号审稿人最少给的你大修甚至就是拒稿,而且他不满意的地方已经牵涉到你这篇文章的本质了没办法改。。我的经验,这种审稿人二审也不会给你正面的。祝顺利
6楼2019-01-01 16:13:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

thomasadmy

新虫 (小有名气)

2楼2018-11-26 15:51:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chuzhaoxiang

银虫 (小有名气)

万幸,投稿5个月左右返回一审意见,郑院士给了一次宝贵的修改机会,大家帮忙分析一下审稿意见,给些修改建议吧


Comments from the editors and reviewers:
-Reviewer 1
The manuscript addresses the issue of analytically predicting the effective thermal conductivity (ETC) of low porosity granular geomaterials. Haigh’s (2012) model for predicting the ETC based on spherical particle embedded in unit cylindrical cell is extended for lower void ratio (e<0.5) has been developed. The work sounds original and reads well. Clarification on electrical analogy for thermal conductivity is explained very well. The pictorial representation of thermal unit cell and derivation of the formulas are noteworthy. However, following points needs to be clarified before considered for publication.
1.        For quasi-hemispherical particle enclosed in the cylindrical cell, the radius of the inscribed spherical particles are allowed to grow till sqrt(2R). This assumption control the alpha and beta controlling parameters. Parameter alpha control the porosity (phi) of the system. A proper explanation is required based on physical or geometrial sense for justification of this assumption.
2.        The curvature of the menisci holding the water at the particle contact is ignored. This plays a significant role in ETC computation. This should be mentioned in the assumption.
3.        Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) provides better justification for change in ETC of geomaterials which is not limited to sand type materials only. A metion of this similarity is provide in the review of Dong et al. Geotech. and Geolog.Eng. 33, 202-221,(2015).  Likos has developed an analytical expression considering this effect. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 33, 179–192. A mention of this work is relevant for this manuscript.
4.        Some of the references regarding the numerical thermal conductivity evaluation are relatively old and need to be updated, I suggested recent relevant references by Lee et. al  Geothermics 67 76-85 (2017).

-Reviewer 2

In this research, a cylindrical unit cell model for predicting the effective thermal conductivity of two-phase or three-phase low porosity granular geomaterials is proposed. As understood by the reviewer, the model is simple geometry discretization of the unit particle into three-phase and assigning an initial thermal conductivity for each phase to fit the experimental data given in the last section of the paper. So, there is not that much difference between this model and fitting curve models exist in the literature (Chen 2008, Lu et al 2007). The general standard is far below what is expected for this journal. The main points will be:
1. While talking about three-phase heat transfer, considering only the conduction heat transfer is not valid.
2. Why consider only low porosity, in the literature, exists also models for low porosity as mentioned by authors: Gori and Corasaniti 2013. And most importantly why cylinder unit model, when eventually spatial correction is needed?
3. The model is only applicable to soils with the same sized particles and pores, which doesn’t exist in nature. There is also no thermal resistance in contacts.
4. The cylindrical unit cell is considered to be the REV, which is false.
5. The only water volume is the water bridges between the particles, which its volume depends on applied suction. What about the bulk water volume trapped between the particles?
6. Are the Equations given in this research derived by the authors or they are taken from literature? The references should be given.
7. Table 3 depicts the thermal conductivities given to each phase (Solids, Water and Air). How these parameters are determined? Isn’t this a fitting curve? The authors claim in the conclusion that their model represents the physical basis of heat conduction rather than empirical models’ curve-fitting to experimental results.
8. What about the effect of particle size on ETC?
3楼2018-12-01 23:15:19
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

xiaozhao2

新虫 (初入文坛)

★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2018-12-04 12:54:10
看来郑院士最近忙,我等了一个月也是1号给的修改意见

发自小木虫IOS客户端
4楼2018-12-04 00:11:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

匿名


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
本帖仅楼主可见
5楼2018-12-23 01:57:35
已阅   申请SEPI   回复此楼   编辑   查看我的主页

wenqu

铁杆木虫 (职业作家)

酷酷文曲


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
6楼: Originally posted by asdaair at 2019-01-01 16:13:21
应该是编辑犹豫过给不给你修改的机会,所以拖了这么久。我感觉2号审稿人最少给的你大修甚至就是拒稿,而且他不满意的地方已经牵涉到你这篇文章的本质了没办法改。。我的经验,这种审稿人二审也不会给你正面的。祝顺 ...

我看懂了,第一个审稿人认为文献小修后可发表,第二个觉得文章换汤不换药,没有新意,然后列了一堆质疑问题,所以应该是大修或拒的意思。那文章的价值创新性可能要针对性的重申了。

发自小木虫Android客户端
不羁年华
7楼2019-01-31 23:02:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

Chitty_Lee

木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
请问楼主最后结果如何?接收了吗?

发自小木虫IOS客户端
8楼2019-02-18 17:07:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chuzhaoxiang

银虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
8楼: Originally posted by Chitty_Lee at 2019-02-18 17:07:55
请问楼主最后结果如何?接收了吗?

好好修改,接收了
9楼2019-07-11 19:58:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

Chitty_Lee

木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
9楼: Originally posted by chuzhaoxiang at 2019-07-11 19:58:42
好好修改,接收了...

谢谢楼主!我的也接收了...

发自小木虫IOS客户端
10楼2019-07-11 20:12:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 chuzhaoxiang 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见