| 查看: 1327 | 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 Not to be published in Chemistry Letter, because] The results do not meet the criteria of novelty required as a communication. 2.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
不应该看fileCode
已经有7人回复
-
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有25人回复
-
关于Filecode分析方法
已经有11人回复
-
重要来源：本周末出结果
已经有9人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有14人回复
-
结合人工智能，周易传统文化，filecode打分制来了，3分以上希望很大。
已经有4人回复
-
2019年青年基金涵评意见，大家看看几个A，几个B?
已经有11人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有36人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有6人回复
-
filecode
已经有15人回复
sculhf
荣誉版主 (知名作家)
断翼天使
-
专家经验: +1 - 应助: 243 (大学生)
- 贵宾: 4.018
- 金币: 43350.9
- 散金: 1634
- 红花: 64
- 沙发: 16
- 帖子: 7687
- 在线: 2008.3小时
- 虫号: 497659
- 注册: 2008-02-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 基金申请
5楼2009-09-19 10:54:31
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
