24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者是个好影迷将赠送您 5 个金币

是个好影迷

铁虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 21.3
散金: 113
红花: 1
帖子: 63
在线: 28.2小时
虫号: 2995177
注册: 2014-02-25
专业: 工艺美术

[求助] 请问elsevier这个revise-language状态是需要大修吗？已有3人参与

投了一个三区文章现在第二次大修的意见返回View Decision的状态是revise-language，但是给了两个月。
编辑的意见是：
Reviewer comments on your manuscript indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. However, I invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments included below.

If you submit a revised manuscript, please consider the reviewer's comments carefully. Please resubmit your manuscript by Nov 28, 2022.

然后直接贴了两个评审的评分表给我：

1. Are the objectives and the rationale of the study clearly stated?

Reviewer #1: The objectives and the rationale are clearly described.

Reviewer #3: 1、well stated

--------------------

2. If applicable, is the application/theory/method/study reported in sufficient detail to allow for its replicability and/or reproducibility?

Reviewer #1: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

Reviewer #3: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

--------------------

3. If applicable, are statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, and statistical reporting (e.g., P-values, CIs, effect sizes) appropriate and well described?

Reviewer #1: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

Reviewer #3: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

--------------------

4. Could the manuscript benefit from additional tables or figures, or from improving or removing (some of the) existing ones?

Please provide specific suggestions for improvements, removals, or additions of figures or tables. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer #1: Tables and figures are fine.

Reviewer #3: the results had been well stated.

--------------------

5. If applicable, are the interpretation of results and study conclusions supported by the data?

Reviewer #1: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [X] No [] N/A []
Provide further comments here:

Reviewer #3: Mark as appropriate with an X:
Yes [] No [] N/A [X]
Provide further comments here:

--------------------

6. Have the authors clearly emphasized the strengths of their study/theory/methods/argument?

Reviewer #1: They clearly described their strength of the study,

Reviewer #3: No.
highlights had not been well emphasized.

--------------------

7. Have the authors clearly stated the limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument?

Reviewer #1: Yes, they clearly mentioned the limitation.

Reviewer #3: 1. should be further analyzed in this research.

--------------------

8. Does the manuscript structure, flow or writing need improving (e.g., the addition of subheadings, shortening of text, reorganization of sections, or moving details from one section to another)?

Reviewer #1: The structure of the paper is fine,

Reviewer #3: 1. The logical meaning of some sentence are confusing,；
such as "Hence, .... efficiency and usability."
2. there were a fair amount of grammatical errors found in this manuscript.

--------------------

9. Could the manuscript benefit from language editing?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

主要是评审3提了①highlight写得不够好，②结果需要进一步分析，③提了一个语法问题但认为文章需要润色

其实我二审已经润色过了，并且附上了elsevier的语言编辑证书，评审1觉得语言没问题，评审3觉得有问题

关键编辑这句it is not acceptable for publication in its present form是套话还是委婉的拒稿.....

回复此楼