24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

brisky1

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.02
金币: 4940.4
散金: 69
帖子: 605
在线: 258.1小时
虫号: 590876
注册: 2008-09-01
性别: GG
专业: 金属非晶态、准晶和纳米晶

[交流] submitted to Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

郁闷！！
差一点就中了！！！

Your paper submitted to Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics has now been
refereed and the referee report(s) are attached.

I am sorry to tell you that your paper is not suitable for publication in
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics in its current form. The changes
needed are too great for a revision. However, the referee(s) feel that if
you rewrite the article as explained in the referee reports, and include
any further work recommended, it may then be suitable for reconsideration.

If you wish to rewrite your paper, please take the referee comments fully
into account, and provide a detailed response and a full list of changes.
We will treat the rewritten paper as a new submission, with a new article
reference number, and it will be peer reviewed again. Please note that
although we will go back to the previous referees for their second opinion
where this is possible, we may also contact further referees in order to
ensure that the rewritten paper meets our high quality and interest
criteria. If it does not do this, the new version will be rejected.

I would like to thank you for your interest in Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Ryder & Stuart Roberts
Publishing Administrators
Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

Publishing Team
Sarah Ryder & Stuart Roberts - Publishing Administrators
Sarah Quin - Publisher
Gregory Smith, Adam Zienkiewicz and Olivia Roche - Publishing Editors
Martin Beavis - Production Editor

Contact Details
E-mail: jphysd@iop.org
Fax: +44 (0) 117 9200664

FIRST REFEREE'S REPORT
============================
The paper contains very few actual results and only these keep me from
recommending an outright rejection. If there were more results, possibly on

more samples, and a more extensive analysis, the initial results presented
here
would be worthy of publication.

Overall the article is poorly written and in some places very hard to
understand. The authors should strongly consider improving their English
for
the sake of future articles.

Article under review for Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

SECOND REFEREE'S REPORT
============================
This paper present an interesting approach to modify the 。。in the well known 。。, by the nanostructuring. The results seem to
be
plausible. Unfortunately it is impossible to evaluate the results since the

description of magnetocaloric measuring apparatus is insufficient.
This especially concerns the mass and shape of samples, uniformity of
。。。。.
How was the sample temperature controlled ?
How was the accuracy of temperature change measurement and the time
sequence of
measurements?
The above questions are important because the measurements applied by the
authors are not the standard ones. Moreover, the only Ref 24 given is not
available.

As the additional test for the applied measurements and interpretation,
parameters of the 。。。。。
studied should be compared to the published data for the polycrystalline
Gd.

I hope to see a corrected version .

Article under review for Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

ADJUDICATOR'S REPORT
============================
The authors report on the influence of nanostructuring on the
。。。 of 。。。. Although the subject is interesting, this referee considers
that
the work is not complete enough to be published in the present form in
Journal
of Physics D.
In particular, the following points should be considered:
-No details about the experimental setup are given. Taking into account
that
the reference provided is not easily accessible, and for the benefit of the

readers, the main details of the experimental method should be given.
-At the beginning of pg. 6 the authors seem to hint that they expected
giant
。。。in the nanoparticles. Is there any reason for that?
-Results indicate that 。。 is decreasing with decreasing grain size.
Therefore,
it seems that nanostructuring is deleterious for improving the 。。response
of
the material. However, there are two effects: grain size and consolidation
by
SPS. The starting nanoparticles are not measured, and that should give
hints
about the reason why 。。。is decreasing with grain size. When the sample is
composed of small grains ， is the sample
behaving as
a set of coupled superparamagnetic particles? For this analysis, the
isothermal
magnetization curves could be helpful.
-The labels of the size bars in the TEM micrographs should be enlarged.

[ Last edited by nxssw on 2009-7-9 at 14:40 ]

回复此楼