| 查看: 1335 | 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 Not to be published in Chemistry Letter, because] The results do not meet the criteria of novelty required as a communication. 2.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
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有15人回复
-
澳大利亚 Murdoch University 全奖博士招生（3个名额）地质化工冶金领域
已经有20人回复
-
静等基金结果
已经有21人回复
-
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有28人回复
-
阿姨
已经有3人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有6人回复
-
filecode
已经有16人回复
-
重要来源：本周末出结果
已经有10人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有6人回复
-
不应该看fileCode
已经有9人回复
nono2009
超级版主 (文学泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
专家经验: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 应助: 28684 (院士)
- 贵宾: 513.911
- 金币: 2555230
- 散金: 27828
- 红花: 2148
- 沙发: 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在线: 65200.9小时
- 虫号: 827383
- 注册: 2009-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
- 管辖: 科研家筹备委员会
7楼2009-09-19 11:02:21
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
