| 查看: 1199 | 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 Not to be published in Chemistry Letter, because] The results do not meet the criteria of novelty required as a communication. 2.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
290调剂生物0860
已经有32人回复
-
271求调剂
已经有28人回复
-
105500药学求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
274求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
335求调剂
已经有20人回复
-
化工学硕294分，求导师收留
已经有33人回复
-
290求调剂
已经有22人回复
-
291 求调剂
已经有36人回复
-
食品与营养（0955）271求调剂
已经有16人回复
-
22408 312求调剂
已经有10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
20