| 查看: 3666 | 回复: 9 | ||
johnnyvail新虫 (正式写手)
|
[求助]
第二次Reject in present form，期刊给了两个审稿意见，各位大神看一下还有戏吗？ 已有6人参与
|
|
the board has reviewed your paper, and i regret to inform you that it is not acceptable in present form. this decision indicates that although the paper contains material that would be of interest to the 期刊 readers, it is not currently in a form that is acceptable to the bulletin. we encourage you to rewrite the paper along the guidelines suggested by the reviewers and resubmit it to the bulletin. the rewritten paper will be subject to a full review. 期刊 editor, xxx has the following comments and instructions: 1. the two reviewers have divergent recommendations indicating that the manuscript is not ready for acceptance. 2. several major flaws have been identified. the manuscript lacks novelty and the writing quality is substandard. i strongly recommend that the authors engage a native english speaker during the revision process. furthermore the supporting references are insufficient. 3. there is no comparison presented between the current study’s approach and previously published methods. reviewer 4: 1. prior to resubmission, language of the revised manuscript must be polished and edited by a native speaker. 2. title of 2nd chapter is recommended to rewrite instead by "methodology". 3. equations should be formatted in accordance with standards. for example, bracket in eq. (1) must be written in "times new roman" type. 4. variables are not written normally. superscript generally means a variable will times by itself in several times. and subscript indicates what kind of variable it will be. xt2 represent square of variable xt, and then phydro is recommended to write as phydro. 5. please add line numbers on the left side of manuscript. 6. for the lines 2 to 4 in the chapter of "improving connectivity analysis", please write or denote the expression in another line, and then provide the corresponding explanation subsequently. 7. for the figure 2, the unit of pore pressure is not written normally. 8. for the figure 7, please add units for all logs and other kinds of illustrating data. 9. "figure 6b shows that the pressure coefficients of sand 4 and sand 5 cannot be regressed as one inversely proportional function with depth. the two asymptotes in sand 4 differ from sand 5. additionally, the pressure coefficient function was not monotonic at shallower depths, and the two functions did not have a unique axis (table 1). as a result, analysis of the properties of sand 4 and sand 5 showed that they are not connected. this analysis avoids the linear law's limitations in high permeability units. the inversely proportional function of the pressure coefficient versus depth, therefore, is more sensitive and reliable than the linear function. it has reliably enhanced the results of the connectivity analysis." i don't understand this paragraph. why is this analysis capable to avoid the linear law's limitations in high permeability units? please explain in details. as a result, analysis of the properties of sand 4 and sand 5 showed that- showed? reliably enhanced? - effectively enhanced? significantly enhanced? greatly enhanced? 10. i have read lots of similar articles, and the question is what is the most significant novelty of this manuscript. please compare your experiment results with those generated by some classic methods. i think the addition of result comparison will strengthen reader to convince effectiveness of the proposed method. reviewer 5: this paper used the geometric properties of the pressure coefficient versus depth inversely proportional function (derived from nonlinear regressions) to determine reservoir connectivity in normal pressure networks. they categorized the geometric properties as intersection, monotonicity, boundedness, and symmetry. however, this paper should be rejected due to the low novelty in the technical contents and the poor english writing. why did you choose the case from bohai oilfield? what is the main advantages of the study? even the authors' names are incorrect in terms of the family and first names. please add more recent references to illustrate the advances in this area. the authors also cited some chinese book contents. in the reference list, some similar work has been published in 期刊. i do not see much novelty in the present paper. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有56人回复
-
最近几年招的学生写论文不引自己组发的文章
已经有5人回复
-
26申博自荐
已经有3人回复
-
A期刊撤稿
已经有4人回复
bobvan
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- SEPI: 1
- 应助: 4776 (副教授)
- 金币: 33094.3
- 散金: 19700
- 红花: 350
- 帖子: 11151
- 在线: 1513小时
- 虫号: 2171443
- 注册: 2012-12-07
- 专业: 催化化学
2楼2019-03-12 12:29:29
3楼2019-03-12 17:10:52
editsprings 
捐助贵宾 (著名写手)
- 应助: 794 (博后)
- 金币: 3322.5
- 散金: 3101
- 红花: 81
- 帖子: 1083
- 在线: 473.8小时
- 虫号: 4655759
- 注册: 2016-05-04
- 专业: 无机纳米化学
4楼2019-03-13 11:06:42
kmght
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
AP
- 应助: 615 (博士)
- 金币: 8609.7
- 散金: 1233
- 红花: 82
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 5973
- 在线: 854.9小时
- 虫号: 4245445
- 注册: 2015-11-25
- 专业: 生物海洋学与海洋生物资源
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
johnnyvail: 金币+10, ★★★很有帮助 2019-05-05 11:47:18
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
johnnyvail: 金币+10, ★★★很有帮助 2019-05-05 11:47:18
|
其他格式问题是作者自己太草率了，不够认真，还是没经验，下次投稿一定要避免的。英文写作也是可以慢慢提高的。 致命伤是创新性，如果提不出鲜明的创新点，杯具概率很大 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
5楼2019-03-14 01:08:04
cy211
木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 125 (高中生)
- 金币: 2268.7
- 散金: 1482
- 红花: 33
- 帖子: 3644
- 在线: 1268.5小时
- 虫号: 904419
- 注册: 2009-11-16
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 色谱分析
6楼2019-03-14 09:36:34
| 。 |
7楼2019-03-16 07:42:53
 |
8楼2019-03-17 03:44:53
new211
新虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 72
- 散金: 5
- 帖子: 24
- 在线: 4小时
- 虫号: 2822263
- 注册: 2013-11-23
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 石油、天然气地质学
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ...
johnnyvail: 金币+80, ★★★★★最佳答案, 谢谢~还是同行看的准~ 2019-05-05 11:46:05
johnnyvail: 金币+80, ★★★★★最佳答案, 谢谢~还是同行看的准~ 2019-05-05 11:46:05
|
编辑部肯定了你文章可能具有吸引力，也鼓励你修改后再投。此外，下次的审稿人不一定还是这波人。所以，你可以参考现在的审稿意见适当改一下，没必要全改，然后继续投。 要点：（1）创新性问题，凸显你的方法创新或者应用创新；（2）语言问题，下次投稿前找老师修改一下，如果不放心，难就送出去润色一下，也不贵。 Good Luck! |
9楼2019-03-31 16:39:32
10楼2019-03-31 21:03:37