| 查看: 1000 | 回复: 2 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者linzhiqi1将赠送您 100 个金币 | ||
| 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 | ||
linzhiqi1木虫 (正式写手)
|
[求助]
请教审稿意见的读解
|
|
|
Editor's Comments: As you will see from the comments of the referee, this manuscript is not deemed appropriate as Little Gems column article. The referee does indicate that it has promise as a regular article, but only after improvements have been made with regard to the grammar and language; my own thoughts are in line with this assessment, but I am not comfortable sending this version out for further expert external review as a regular article until it has been completely revised and improvements in the language have been made. (As an example of where improvements are necessary, the first two sentences suffer from grammar problems, so much so that they are difficult to interpret.) Furthermore, the most recent citation in your manuscript is from 2002; several Arduino based papers have appeared in the literature since then, at least one of which is likely to be relevant, so your manuscript should be rewritten after studying that literature. Finally, it would be useful to see more detail about how you use this in your own class or lab setting, and to see a sample of the data over a range of depths of water (or perhaps other fluids) so that others can assess whether they want to invest energy in mimicking your setup, so please consider how you might include those ideas in your revised manuscript also. Should you wish to pursue publication of this work in TPT further, then it will be important to revise your manuscript along the lines suggested above; I will then strive to find suitable expert reviewers to further assess your submission. Thank you for your consideration. **************** Reviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations: The paper contributes to the teaching of introductory physics.: Yes The material is correct as written.: Yes The material is novel (not common knowledge or readily available).: Yes The level of presentation is appropriate for readers of TPT.: Yes The quality of the writing (clarity of presentation) is acceptable.: Doubtful A thorough literature search has been done as eviden 这个是要改稿件格式适应栏目，还是改栏目。  发自小木虫Android客户端 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
博士读完未来一定会好吗
已经有16人回复
-
心脉受损
已经有5人回复
-
Springer期刊投稿求助
已经有4人回复
-
读博
已经有3人回复
-
小论文投稿
已经有3人回复
-
Bioresource Technology期刊，第一次返修的时候被退回好几次了
已经有9人回复
-
到新单位后，换了新的研究方向，没有团队，持续积累2区以上论文，能申请到面上吗
已经有8人回复
-
申请2026年博士
已经有6人回复
