24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

lcycomcn

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

千年虫

应助: 7 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.01
金币: 4000.9
散金: 1638
红花: 2
帖子: 1659
在线: 326.4小时
虫号: 507395
注册: 2008-02-19
性别: GG
专业: 生化分析及生物传感

[交流] 审稿结果

4个月前投的一篇外文文章，共2个审稿人，前几天审稿意见回来，其中一个审稿人的意见是This is well written and contains scientically and technologically important results. I recommend "publish as is". 另外一个审稿人的意见是觉得没有引用2000年的一篇参考文献，还有和该文献的实验结果相差太大，给的意见是拒稿。最后编辑给的结果是拒稿。
其实我这篇文章和第2个审稿人说的参考文献所说的实验方法不一样，结果也不一样，我想给编辑写信争取一下，同时按照第2个人的审稿意见再好好改，不知道这样希望大不大？各位大侠有没有这样的给编辑写信的模板，麻烦发一份给我，重谢！邮箱：LCY82001@yahoo.com.cn

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

最失望的一年已经有17人回复
拟解决的关键科学问题还要不要写已经有8人回复
为什么nbs上溴没有产物点出现呢已经有6人回复
求推荐博导已经有4人回复
存款400万可以在学校里躺平吗已经有34人回复
求助一下有机合成大神已经有4人回复
求推荐英文EI期刊已经有5人回复
26申博已经有3人回复
基金委咋了？2026年的指南还没有出来？已经有10人回复
疑惑？已经有5人回复

宁静以致远

1楼 2009-08-09 20:16:52

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

精灵小睿

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 446.4
散金: 30
帖子: 156
在线: 17.6小时
虫号: 695103
注册: 2009-02-02
性别: GG
专业: 信息系统与管理

★ ★
lcycomcn(金币+2,VIP+0):谢谢！ 8-9 20:22

这个木虫里面应该有么
我与国外某审稿人的战争
http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=652324&view=old

We are thankful the reviewer for her/his comments on our manuscript. It is true that ××××and the ××× function are well described in literature, but it is for the ××× and ××× polymers. We have reviewed this fact in introduction in the original and revised manuscript. It is possible that the available open-source code software, such as ××× (i.e. a ××× theory), can treat the polymers with complex architecture. However, it should be mentioned that the advantage of our approach is that it not only can calculate the ××× of the polymers with complex architecture, but also minimizes the computational time-consumption. In other version algorithms, the ××× function for the polymers with complex architecture may be computed repeatedly. The more complex the architecture, the more the time-consumption of this repeated computation is, which leads to great waste of computer sources. Our algorithm overcomes this problem by computing the ××× function just in demands, i.e. every ××× function just needs to be computed one time, which greatly reduces the calculation of ××× in a minimum limit. Therefore, the proposed algorithm is a fairly efficient algorithm.

In addition, it is also possible the ××× software can calculate the ×××of the polymers with complex architecture, but the ××××is still under developing, and the open-source code is not published yet for the polymers with complex architecture. Moreover, the ×××used the ×××, which is different from the ××××in this work. In the ××××××××××, while in the××××××. Furthermore, in the unpublished version of ××××, no any references or results about the ×××× for the polymers with complex architecture are available. In the available version of ××××, the software can only calculate the××××of the×××polymers, and even is not applicable to ××××polymers (×××××××××（web site)). Therefore, we believe that our algorithm is interesting and valuable. As a result, we request the referee to re-evaluate the value and importance of our algorithm. To highlight the importance of our algorithm, we added the following sentences into the revised version.

“×××××××××××××××××××××"

[ Last edited by 精灵小睿 on 2009-8-9 at 20:22 ]