24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

lkd-syl

金虫 (著名写手)

快乐家族

应助: 7 (幼儿园)
金币: 4131.6
散金: 297
红花: 16
帖子: 1779
在线: 517.3小时
虫号: 2653955
注册: 2013-09-14
专业: 金属材料的制备科学与跨学

[交流] 拒稿毫无厘头，根本不知道他们要表达什么，感觉还是不要投国内期刊了已有5人参与

审稿意见：COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1:

Using First-principles calculations, the present work studied the *** of ****. Based the calculated ****, a number of *** are predicted. The content is within the scope of the journal. And the result is consistent with the literature and helpful for ***. However, in predicting the ***, the theoretical models naturally ignore the ****, e.g., ****. Thus it is important to compare with experiments to justify the theoretical results and avoid potential misunderstanding of the readers.
Also, the language should be polished.
I therefore suggest a major revision of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, *****（摘要里的大致内容）. The author's results of calculation can verify some experimntal resuits of *** and guide ****. Here the reviewer has some questions and advices:
1. According some other reports (such as "****"

, ***，which is opposite to the results of this paper. Is the result of *** reliable? （这里需要说明的是我论文里结论关于这方面的解释与他提供这个论文的信息是一致的，但是他这么说不一致，我还特意对照了一下，当然审稿人可能就是他提供这篇文章的作者之一）
2. In the ****. So does the calculation and prediction of *** in this paper have practical significance?
3. There are also some errors in English grammar, tense inconsistency and ununity in single and plural. For example, there are grammatical errors in"it is obviously can be seen" and "with *** has the minimum".Please check the paper again carefully.

基于上述，编辑给了reject，我感觉总体该给大修啊，目前想申诉，不知道成功几率大不大，因为他说这几点我感觉解释没有问题，语言牙可以润色。

回复此楼