24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1516  |  回复: 32
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

zhaosong6638

铁虫 (小有名气)

[交流] 论文被拒 郁闷呀

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
General Comments
o Lack of novelty. RSM in this manuscript can be considered as new thing.
o Solvothermal … It has been reported by  previous  researchers (Rongrong et al…2005 in Polymer Journal)
oEnglish must be improved?

Introduction
•        Lack of information. It should be added more information to relate with the current study.
•        Page 1,Line 8 to 9, ….“ However, traditional methods could not obtain graft polymer with high percentage of grafting”….
o        Question: In manuscript, author (s) did not report, even in abstract and conclusion section, the percentage of grafting produced from your method compared to the traditional method.
o        Question: What do you mean by traditional method? To make it clear, author(s) should elaborate or discuss more on this statement.
•        Page 2, line 1 to 3,…”In this study, the  solvothermal method was first successfully  used to prepare the….
o        Question: What do you mean by ‘first’…is it never used  before?.. Actually this method has been reported thoroughly by  Rongrong Qi et al (2005) in Polymer Journal.
•        Page 2, line 3, .. “Then grafting mechanism was described….”
o        Question : Author (s) was not described  this mechanism in detail in the manuscript (just a few line)…so what do you mean by  “ describe”…..

Methodology
•        Lack of explanation. It is hard to understand the method used in this study.
o        MAH concentration, styrene concentration, reaction time, reaction temperature, etc did not report in this manuscript?
•        Page 2, Grafting copolymerization, Line 2,.. different reaction conditions
o        Question : ... In what conditions ?
•        Page 2, Grafting copolymerization, Line 2 to 3, ….appropriate amount ?
o        Question : ... How much ?
•        Page 2, Grafting copolymerization, Line 2 to 3, temperature oven  for a certain time ?
o        Question : ... Value ?


Discussion
•        Lack of discussion, particularly the mechanism shown in Scheme 1.
•        Absorption values  (FTIR) and  characteristics peaks (NMR) in text were not correspond to the value shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Reference
o        Reference format writing was totally wrong …..


Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The manuscript deals with a grafting procedure of PP by  parameters optimization.
The introduction is not adequate; really the grafting of PP(by melt processing and/or by solution approaches) have been extensively investigated in the last decades but the authors reported only few references.
The purpose/aim is not clearly assessed
No fundamental experimental details for grafting are reported: temperature, time, amount of reagents; these parameters are probably discussed in the optimization description part, but not in a clear way and in any case a description of methodologies is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the reader.
Products were not adequately purified and the characterization by FT-IR and NMR did not evidence the grafting reactions : the presence of double bonds and of the other signals can be easily associated to monomers trapped and not removed by the simple washing with acetone; any details about experiments able to justify the gradient of grafting (from the surface to the core of PP??? The author used pellets, films??) have been reported and discussed.
Discussion did not support the experimental results
The scheme of reactions mechanism is wrong (at least by considering the poor experimental details not able to justify the presence of water and the first reaction reported): in the presence of PP and peroxide (if the reaction conditions are adequate) the first reaction is the formation of a macroradical undergoing to grafting in the presence of MAH and/or a reaction with the charge transfer complex (CTC) that generally is formed by MAH and Sty (not mentioned by the autors). Degradation by b-scission is the most important side reaction for PP
回复此楼
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


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
从comments来看,内容明显缺乏新意。建议先扎实工作,广读文献,等有了真正有价值的内容后再写,不然是浪费自己的时间。
8楼2009-09-12 10:26:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 33 个回答

ganxiumin

金虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
给的意见很详细呢!!楼主就照着改改,再投别的杂志吧!加油!
2楼2009-09-12 10:09:41
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

doctorsean

木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
这是非常宝贵的意见啊,对文章的修改和以后的投稿是非常有帮助的,楼主继续加油!
3楼2009-09-12 10:12:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

AgI2008

木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
再接再厉
  祝lz的文章早日中
所谓门槛,迈过去就是门,没迈过去就是槛~
4楼2009-09-12 10:15:05
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见