| 查看: 2748 | 回复: 25 | |||
| 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 | |||
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» 猜你喜欢
材料085601调剂
已经有28人回复
-
344 材料专业 求调剂211 无地域要求
已经有8人回复
-
279求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
求调剂，985材料与化工348分
已经有11人回复
-
一志愿中南大学 0855 机械 286 求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
085600材料与化工349分求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
考研求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
调剂求收留
已经有30人回复
-
297工科，求调剂?
已经有9人回复
-
0854调剂
已经有11人回复
dongfangjian
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- SEPI: 2
- 应助: 9 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.001
- 金币: 17797.3
- 散金: 94
- 红花: 15
- 帖子: 2097
- 在线: 1264.1小时
- 虫号: 488839
- 注册: 2007-12-31
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 结构陶瓷
|
Reviewer #1: This is a rather good paper dealing with the theoretical study of the electronic structure and elastic properties of the ternary carbide Ti4GaC3. The work has been done competently and merits publication in SSC. Two points could be somewhat extended and discussed before publication proceeds. The study is a bit too restrictive. The 413 stoichiometry is observed with other elements (Ta4AlC3, V4AlC3-x.). I would have liked to see a comparison and a discussion with Ti4GaC3. What about the elastic properties when we play with different elements (different electron counts per formula)? What about the electronic structure difference? Some phases are carbon deficient. Why? Similarly, the comparison with Ti2GaC could be extended by giving and commenting its electronic structure. Minor points. The drawing of Ti4GaC3 (Fig. 1) is not that clear. We hardly see the octahedral surrounding of C atoms. |
18楼2009-09-13 09:59:27
ljl1205
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 0.118
- 金币: 3602.5
- 散金: 2948
- 红花: 22
- 帖子: 1305
- 在线: 1822.6小时
- 虫号: 353140
- 注册: 2007-04-23
- 专业: 控制理论与方法
2楼2009-09-09 21:47:42
goodtimega
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 8138.7
- 散金: 570
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 1489
- 在线: 527.5小时
- 虫号: 820248
- 注册: 2009-08-02
- 专业: 高分子材料结构与性能
3楼2009-09-09 21:58:28
bjlumang
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 25 (小学生)
- 金币: 9225.9
- 散金: 56
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 7788
- 在线: 640.1小时
- 虫号: 149938
- 注册: 2005-12-29
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 化工热力学和基础数据
|
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: |
4楼2009-09-09 22:18:43
