24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3406)
>导师招生 (294)
>招聘信息布告栏 (131)
>休闲灌水 (122)
>论文道贺祈福 (110)
>硕博家园 (74)
>找工作 (40)
>考研 (40)
>虫友互识 (33)
>文献求助 (31)
>生物科学 (29)
>博后之家 (25)
>考博 (18)
>医学 (18)
>基金申请 (16)
>教师之家 (14)

返回列表

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

yuanhuicd

铁虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 643.9
帖子: 67
在线: 15小时
虫号: 827599
注册: 2009-08-14
专业: 电能储存与节电技术

[交流] 急！请大家给点修改经验

投出修改稿后一个多月，终于盼来了决定信，又是大修，以下是编辑给我的原文，请大家帮我看看，给我一点经验从哪个角度去解决这个问题。现在我的情况是不是很危险啊？
Associate Editor (Remarks for the Author):

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript. However, the main critical comment presented by the reviewers during the initial review round (the lack of novelty) has not been addressed to the required extent. This is related particularly to the reviewer #1, who stated "The authors did not successfully defend their novelty of paper" and partially - to the reviewer #3 (please refer to the review below).

The authors are offered one more chance to further improve the manuscript. In particular, the authors should make every effort to clarify and support all issues related to novelty, originality, benefits, comparison with the previously reported approaches, etc., of the proposed technique.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks for the Author):

The authors have taken care of most of the points raised in the earlier draft of the paper.

In this version of the paper, the novelty of the proposed technique has been highlighted more clearly.

However, I suggest the authors compare their method with other existing techniques in this area (processing acoustoelectric current). The authors point to this on page 2, lines 6-7, briefly.

回复此楼