| 查看: 1202 | 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 Not to be published in Chemistry Letter, because] The results do not meet the criteria of novelty required as a communication. 2.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
一志愿华中农业071010，320求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
291求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
085801电气专硕272求调剂
已经有18人回复
-
296求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
求调剂学校
已经有14人回复
-
药学求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
复试调剂
已经有22人回复
-
求调剂推荐
已经有5人回复
-
山东省基金2026
已经有10人回复
-
291求调剂
已经有3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: 43312.9
- 散金: 1634
- 红花: 64
- 沙发: 16
- 帖子: 7676
- 在线: 2007.8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
