| 查看: 297 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
mhs705银虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
求助分析投稿后编辑给的意见
|
||
|
投稿后编辑给的意见如下： Dear Dr. Lei: Your manuscript # APP-2009-03-0917 entitled "Preparation and properties of the phenolic foams with controllable nanometer pore structure" which you submitted to the Journal of Applied Polymer Science, has been reviewed. I am sorry to inform you that based on the reviewers' comments, I must ask you to revise and resubmit this manuscript before I can reach an editorial decision. The comments from reviewers are included at the bottom of this letter. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the reviewers before a decision is rendered. If you choose to resubmit your manuscript, go to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/app and login to your Author Center. Look for "Manuscripts with Decisions" and select "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. Then, follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript. Please submit your revision by 24-Nov-2009. May I take this opportunity to thank you for considering our Journal for the publication of your work. We hope that you will consider resubmitting your manuscript to the Journal. With kind regards, Prof. Sergei Nazarenko Associate Editor, Journal of Applied Polymer Science sergei.nazarenko@usm.edu Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The manuscript presents interesting results of average pore size of phenolic foams. The revisions listed below are necessary to allow publication. 1) The results should be compared with reference “Kim BG, Lee DG. Development of microwave foaming method far phenolic insulation foams. JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY; 2008. p. 716-9”. 2) Figure captions and table titles need revision: Table II □ write: ..”phenolic foams produced at different pressures” Figure 1 □ specify the sample 3) Phenolic foam properties in Table I were obtained by the authors? Describe equipments and methodology for that? 4) Pore size distribution is the most important result of this work. Add details about the measurement and its accuracy. 5) English should be revised. For instance on page 3: “PF, containing 9% hexamine by weight, was resolved into anhydrous ethanol…” The authors probably want to say “dissolved into anhydrous ethanol”. Other language problems can be found in the manuscript. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author I am not able to recommend the publication of this manuscript. In my opinion, the content, the results presented and the presentation style do not warrant publication as a research article. First, the writing style needs to be improved throughout the article. The Abstract needs to be revised to convey more specific information about the work presented. There are numerous such awkward and incorrectly formed sentences and phrases throughout the paper. It is difficult to read the paper in its current form. A careful proof reading and editing is required. The authors claim in several locations that the pore side is uniform. However, they have neither used any parameter to validate this claim nor quantified pore size uniformity. What are the experimental uncertainties in the data presented in Tables II and III? Especially, how accurate is the reported pore diameter. Why are the compressive strength and thermal conductivity data from the Sample made at 2.5MPa not included in Table IV? Why the pressure was selected to be between 2.5MPa to 4MPa? What happens when the pressure is significantly lowered? Selecting only three pressure levels does not give a complete picture of the dependence of pore size on pressure. Therefore the claim made on page 5 that the effect of the pressure on the pore structure is distinct and less than that of the resin concentration may not be valid for pressure levels lower than 2.5MPa. The authors mention on page 6 that the effect of pressure higher than 4MPa will be studied in a subsequent study. I believe that the result from higher pressure cases should be included in this paper. The issues raised above need to be addressed with additional experiments. The data provided in the manuscript is too few to warrant publication as a research article in Journal of Applied Science. 审稿人给了许多不好的意见。 上述意见是不是为据稿意见，我应如何处理。是不是修改后重新投稿，给一个新的投稿号，重新以新的稿件形式来审稿。 本文转自诺贝尔学术资源网 http://bbs.ok6ok.com,☆文献互助、学术交流和学术资源 [ Last edited by xjxlovelxl on 2009-5-29 at 12:04 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
澳大利亚 Murdoch University 全奖博士招生（3个名额）地质化工冶金领域
已经有24人回复
-
阿姨
已经有4人回复
-
一作与独作在应聘高校教师时区别大吗
已经有4人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有9人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有18人回复
-
静等基金结果
已经有21人回复
-
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有28人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有6人回复
-
filecode
已经有16人回复
-
重要来源：本周末出结果
已经有10人回复
★
mhs705(金币+1,VIP+0): 8-13 19:25
mhs705(金币+1,VIP+0): 8-13 19:25
顶一下 |
2楼2009-05-29 06:05:55
3楼2009-05-29 06:06:00
4楼2009-05-29 23:29:14
