24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3413)
>虫友互识 (672)
>论文投稿 (233)
>休闲灌水 (202)
>导师招生 (149)
>基金申请 (143)
>文献求助 (115)
>硕博家园 (77)
>公派出国 (71)
>博后之家 (66)
>考博 (64)
>教师之家 (56)
>考研 (51)
>论文道贺祈福 (37)
>招聘信息布告栏 (35)
>找工作 (33)

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 muchong_li 的 3 个金币，回帖就立即获得 1 个金币，每人有 1 次机会

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

muchong_li

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 2 (幼儿园)
金币: 1079.5
帖子: 219
在线: 65.9小时
虫号: 4127371

[交流] prd审稿意见, A推荐，B拒稿，编辑认为B的意见更compelling, 有无必要再争取一下

下面分别是编辑和两个审稿人意见，审稿人A同意发表，审稿人B认为文章技巧平庸，且没有取得有意思的结果（我们认为这些评价主观性非常强），下面是编辑邮件，有没有纳入A的修改意见再针对B的拒稿意见申诉一下的必要性啊。实在不想改投其它杂志，因为到prd已经是改投了

。

编辑邮件：

Dear ****,

The above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees.
Comments from the reports appear below.

The comments of Referee B suggest that the present manuscript is not
suitable for publication in Physical Review D. We find Referee B's
review more compelling as it is concerned with the motivation and
significance of the paper, which are central criteria for publication
in Physical Review D.

Yours sincerely,

****************
Associate Editor
Physical Review D
Email: prd@aps.org
https://journals.aps.org/prd/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee A -- ****
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this paper the authors obtain ******. Some
of the basic properties of the obtained solutions are studied
*****. As a whole paper is written well. I my
opinion the results of the present paper are of interest and deserve
publication. However, before publication I would like the authors to
address the following comments.

1) It would be good if the authors could briefly comment on******.
2) In the recent years there has been an increasing interest in the ***. The reader would benefit if the authors
cite some of the basic papers in this stream, for example***.

With my comments taken into account I would be glad to recommend the
paper for publication.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee B -- ****
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor

I have reviewed the manuscript "***“，which has been submitted to be considered for
publication in Physical Review D.

The paper constructs and studies a **** modeled by a
***. A solution of this sort is very simple to find, and its
construction follows from standard, well-known techniques in ***. The rest of the paper deals with ***, and even when
some of them deviate from the *** theory, there are no actually new
qualitative features that come as a surprise or that were not observed
in other models.

I do not find the paper suitable for publication.

OVER

回复此楼