| 查看: 1133 | 回复: 20 | |||
| 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 | |||
[交流]
两种截然不同的审稿意见，怎么办？
|
|||
两种截然不同的审稿意见，编辑认为“Although the referees found this manuscript interesting and useful, a majority felt that this work is not suitable for publication in Chemistry Letter.”，第二个审稿人的意见只是有一点道理，编辑为什么不找第三审稿人，还有申辩的可能吗？ -------------------- Referee A Comment: -------------------- 1. Review Result: [1. Publish without change] 2. Rating (Importance of this manuscript) : [5] 3. Reviewer's Comments to the Author(s) (if any) : "This manuscript describes ×××××, this manuscript will be acceptable for Chemistry Letter. Minor error (page 2, left column, 2 paragraph, 6 lines from bottom: ketoreducatases-----ketoreductases) -------------------- Referee B Comment: -------------------- 1. Review Result: [3. Not to be published in Chemistry Letter, because] The results do not meet the criteria of novelty required as a communication. 2. Rating (Importance of this manuscript) : [3] 3. Reviewer's Comments to the Author(s) (if any) : "This manuscript reports ×××××. For these reasons, this manuscript should be rejected." |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
拟解决的关键科学问题还要不要写
已经有8人回复
-
请教限项目规定
已经有5人回复
-
最失望的一年
已经有16人回复
-
存款400万可以在学校里躺平吗
已经有33人回复
-
求助一下有机合成大神
已经有3人回复
-
求推荐英文EI期刊
已经有5人回复
-
26申博
已经有3人回复
-
基金委咋了？2026年的指南还没有出来？
已经有10人回复
-
基金申报
已经有6人回复
-
疑惑？
已经有5人回复
coldmice
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1287.2
- 散金: 500
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 640
- 在线: 78.9小时
- 虫号: 695485
- 注册: 2009-02-03
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 环境工程
11楼2009-09-19 11:50:33
2楼2009-09-19 10:41:38
3楼2009-09-19 10:45:15
|
编辑的?z见如下，就是j拒稿，还能反驳吗？ Dear ××× Your manuscript has been reviewed with the aid of two independent referees whose reports are attached to this mail. Although the referees found this manuscript interesting and useful, a majority felt that this work is not suitable for publication in Chemistry Letter. We sincerely regret to inform you that it is not acceptable for publication in Chemistry Letters. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to review your work. We would gladly welcome any future submissions for consideration for publication in Chem. Lett. Sincerely yours, ××× |
4楼2009-09-19 10:48:43