24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

ykz2000

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 3870.2
红花: 11
帖子: 649
在线: 486.3小时
虫号: 692245
注册: 2009-01-13
性别: GG
专业: 可再生与替代能源利用中的

[交流] 修改后被拒的例子

答辩通过，在办离校手续。因为有导师的账号密码，虽然自己已经没有论文投稿了，还是习惯性地上网看师弟师妹们的论文投稿情况。最近发现师弟的一篇论文修改后被拒了，这种情况比较少见。特地看了修改后的回复和编辑的据稿信，希望对大家有借鉴作用。

编辑的据稿信是这样的：
Dear Professor ***,

I regret to inform you that the reviewers of your manuscript have advised against publication, and I must therefore reject it.

For your guidance, the reviewers' comments are included below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Please proceed to the following link to update your personal classifications and keywords, if necessary:
******

Yours sincerely,

Keumnam Cho, Ph.D.
A. Saito (Regional Editor for Asia)
International Journal of Refrigeration

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The answer to the reviewer's second question of "the rapid tracing ability" isn't sufficient to explain the actual working condition of a refrigerant. According to Fig. 6, there are no openings and closings of refrigerant's doors during the 8 hr. There will be many disturbances during that time. Besides, actual performances test for a refrigerant includes the cyclic door-opening test. Therefore, it is crucial to show the rapid tracing ability to prove the validation of the z-transfer based simulation model.

Heat source term should be provided in Fig.2.

Reviewer #3: The authors presented a model which potentially is useful for the simulation of refrigerator compartments. And then, the authors presented experimental measurements and simulation results of the experiments. During the first review, I raised 4 comments. The last 3 comments were crucial for my decision. In their responses, the authors agreed to the three comments but did nothing to revise their work. If the three comments are correct and obvious, I believe, this manuscript should be revised significantly from the very methodology itself. This is why I am against accepting this manuscript

看来第三个评审者很不满意，直接拒了稿，理由是没有按第2-4条意见修改。
我觉得奇怪，这可是修改的大忌，以往导师要求很严的，怎么没有修改呢？查看了师弟对第2-4条意见的回复：
The authors agree to the comments for the reviewer. The detailed analysis included in the comments of
the reviewer is greatly appreciated by the authors.

果然没有修改。具体的意见我就不列出了，估计是很难修改的，但这么几句话的回复确实是大失误，至少要引用一些文献来支持吧！

[ Last edited by ykz2000 on 2009-10-19 at 23:58 ]

回复此楼