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

戚薇

捐助贵宾 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1651.4
帖子: 1011
在线: 206.2小时
虫号: 2054391

[交流] JC投稿被编辑拒绝，但是给了建议，不知道可不可以改了重新投，求建议

i have examined your manuscript, and, i am sorry to have to turn down your paper without review. our journal concentrates on the reporting of fundamental aspects of catalysis, and there are problems in the reporting of the catalytic rates.

our journal is a specialist journal of catalysis and we require accurate and complete measurement of reactivity.
with rare exceptions (and ref. 13 is one) we require that catalytic results be reported as turnover frequencies. comparison should be made to the best in the literature to show you have outstanding results. you should have estimated the number of exposed ni sites and reported turnover frequencies in addition to conversions. the tofs should have been compared to the best in the literature. a mass balance should have been reported.

it is standard to confirm the lack of mass transfer limitations. you can check this by making a weisz-prater analysis. procedures are reported in the literature. (see for example, the supplemental information section in journal of catalysis 257 (2008) 1-4, which should be cited.). usually, conversions above 40% are limited by mass transfer. in your case you have used too long a time or too much catalyst.

very importantly, our journal deals with the properties of the catalyst or the mechanism of the reaction studied at a molecular level. there should be some spectroscopy to give information about some aspect of the catalyst or reaction so as to give insights at the atomic level. your characterization results are a step in the right direction, but more is needed. you should report how samples were handled and pretreated for the characterization and discuss how this impacts the results obtained and the relation to the catalyst properties at reaction conditions.

the fact that there was only one reference to papers in our journal is further evidence that your paper is not suited to our readership.

we are sorry that we could not be more positive on this occasion, but we thank you for your interest in the journal. please note that our decision does not reflect any doubts about the quality of the work reported, just the appropriateness of the work, and i hope you will rapidly receive a favorable response in a more suitable journal.

[ Last edited by 戚薇 on 2020-11-4 at 08:14 ]

回复此楼