应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 交流 » 大家把收到的审稿意见都发上来吧
261/3返回列表123下一页
查看: 2691  |  回复: 25
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
当前主题已经存档。

ljl1205

木虫 (著名写手)

[交流] 大家把收到的审稿意见都发上来吧

大家把收到的审稿意见都发上来吧，晒晒看看审稿人的评价，有没有最好的评语，让俺等瞻仰一下
回复此楼

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

论文投稿

» 猜你喜欢
1楼 2009-09-09 21:30:24
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ljl1205

木虫 (著名写手)
80个金币，打造牛人的审稿意见汇合
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2009-09-09 21:47:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

goodtimega

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
This manuscript has two major parts. The one is correct is not innovative, and the one is innovative is not correct. Therefore, I would suggest the authors retake quantum chemistry courses and then consider submitting to this type of prestigious journal.
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2009-09-09 21:58:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bjlumang

铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS

Reviewer #1: It is a well written paper with a clear objective and well designed experiments. The findings are a relevant contribution in the field of engineered bioremediation.
However, a few minor  issues should be addressed:

Reviewer #2: This is a good work to combine the bioslurry and two-liquid-phase systems in order to biological degrade persistant contaminants. It contains a variety of chemical and biochemical analysis in order to evaluate the performance of system. However, as I read the manuscript, I theink it need a minor revision about following comments:
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2009-09-09 22:18:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dd2006425

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ Last edited by dd2006425 on 2009-9-11 at 12:36 ]
赞一下 回复此楼
5楼2009-09-09 22:23:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wangwei2008

木虫 (职业作家)

小木虫之移花宫主
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
ljl1205(金币+5,VIP+0): 9-9 22:31
Reviewer #2: This paper reported the isolation and preliminary characterization of a *****that showed ******************.While the**are of value both as *********for improvement of ***************and as potential new *, there are some major concerns about the completeness and quality of the experiment, as well as the organization and English of the paper.
1. The introduction is very detailed on somaclonal variation, some of them are not necessary. For example,Paragraph 3 and 4 can be replaced by citing two or three relevant review papers
2. There are a number of publications documenting the genetic basis of ***************and more recently, the cloning of these genes, they should be part of the introduction and discussed against the result of this study in the Discussion. The lack of any genetic characterization of the induced resistance is the major shortfall of this research. If there is any data, it would be very helpful.
3. The yield performance of Tables 1, 2, 3 might be presented in a single figure, while other data, for example, *****might be given in the context (since more comprehensive data are given in table 4). *******with stdev would be sufficient for the Table 3.
4. For table 4, the presentation of data  for************ is different from mutants, the actual meaning should be explained.
5. In the Discussion, the last sentence of Paragraph 1 seems to be contradictory to the numerious successful examples given in Paragraph 2.
6. Also in the Discussion, Paragraph 4, it  stated that "************************************** .  This is indeed not true; the frequency is already extremely high to have*********from *considering no screening was done during**********. Therefore, the reasons for such a high ******** frequency should be discussed. Additionally, the possible underlining mechanism of the non-segregation**and ***** such as maturity and plant ******** which is extremely unusual, should be discussed.
7. Also in the Discussion, Paragraph 5 seems not very relevant and can be deleted.
8. Overall, the English needs a thorough revsion.
赞一下(16人) 回复此楼
6楼2009-09-09 22:23:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主
Withdrawn...

[ Last edited by nono2009 on 2009-9-10 at 06:37 ]
回复此楼
7楼2009-09-09 22:24:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wyfwywyf

木虫 (著名写手)
Reviewer #1:  
This paper considers strong convergence of rowwise negatively orthant dependent random variables. Although I did not check all the detailed proofs, I found the mathematics used  here looks correct. However, the presentation style should be changed for a better readability. First of all, the title of Section 1 can be switched to Introduction and main result, where you can state motivation, history, definitions, regularity conditions, and main theorems. Then you create Section 2 for the proofs, where you put the preliminary results and proofs of theorems. Also, conditions (1.7)-(1.9) and (1.11)-(1.14) may be stated in the associated theorems. Since this is basically an extension of independent variables, the techniques used here might resemble those in earlier work. Thus some steps may be condensed without damaging the content.

Reviewer #2:
In this paper, the author studies the convergence of partial sums of rowwise NOD random variables. Although this paper is motivated by statistical application to reliability, this paper only considers a limit theorem, so the motive of this paper is a bit artificial for statisticians. This may be a weak point of this paper. To enrich the motivation and background on this subject, the author is required to cite more recent relevant results published in international journals.

The mathematics sounds correct, but many of proofs are standard arguments and some of them may be reduced. Overall, English in this article is fine, but the author can consult a native speaker. And give the full word of NA and the meaning of it.
赞一下 回复此楼
8楼2009-09-09 22:36:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yccycc

木虫 (著名写手)
以前投AFM,一个很mean的reviewer

In addition, the English writing is very poor, there are too many errors. I would not recommend publishing this work in the present form.
赞一下 回复此楼
9楼2009-09-11 00:11:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

hellysir

银虫 (正式写手)

投稿Terra Nova的审稿意见

Reviewer: 1
The paper provides some good information regarding the XXXX. The paper is of reasonably broad international interest and should be of interest to readers of XXXX. Some sections of the text need rephrasing as they are a little unclear as they stand and there are a number of points that need to be addressed before publication. These are as follows:

Reviewer: 2
This ms describes a study of XXXX in XXXX and their use in XXXX. It is an extension of similar work done by the two lead authors on mode and will be of interest to geologists in general and marine geologists in particular. The ms is generally well written and easy to follow, although there are some typos and confusing sentences. There are a few problems with the reference list. This, however, does not negate the findings.
赞一下 回复此楼
10楼2009-09-11 01:29:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 ljl1205 的主题更新
261/3返回列表123下一页
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭