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

al19851986

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 978.1
帖子: 546
在线:
虫号: 470471
注册: 2007-11-29
性别: GG
专业: 化学计量学与化学信息学

[交流] 文章大修

7月24日投稿，8月31返回三个审稿人意见，编辑大修
Reviewer #1:
1. English should be improved by a native speaker.
2. Units should be normalise according to journal.
3. Vendor information must be given consistently and completely: e.g. Sigma (St. Loius, MO, USA); Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Once the location of a supplier has been mentioned, it need not be repeated.
4.
5. Some informations should be given in Figure and Table legends about experimental conditions.

Reviewer #2:
1.The novelty of the paper is poor.
2.The scientific knowledge in the particular area is poor.
3.The results and discussion scientifically are not sound.
4.The real samples (pool water) should be analysed previously by a conventional method
5.
6.

Reviewer #3: A new method after cloud point extraction was described. The subject of the paper is interesting and important.
1.
2. In my opinion authors should show results in Table 2-4 more precisely, especially in the case of recovery data (sometimes above 100%, is it correct? Why?)

文章创新性不高这不好改啊？
另外还有最后一条，分析上回收率超过100%是很正常啊，也不晓得怎么解释？