24小时热门版块排行榜

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

chenfire

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 3 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.03
金币: 4045.1
散金: 210
红花: 163
帖子: 1377
在线: 97.2小时
虫号: 592069
注册: 2008-09-03
专业: 无机非金属类光电信息与功

[交流] 有意思的经历——遭遇审稿人“寻仇”

5月份投的一篇文章，被一个审稿人拒稿后仍被编辑接收并且发表了。
详情：http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1421078
现在新文章又落到了他手上，他对新文章倒是没意见，但对旧文章仍然耿耿于怀，以下是他的审稿意见：

This manuscript presents more experimental results of XXXX. The authors just published a communication in XXXX. I was also a reviewer for that paper. My main comment is that the manuscript should include more experimental data by XXXX, and should be changed to a full paper for publication. It is obvious that the first paper was accepted for publication as a communication without taking my comments seriously. This second paper demonstrates additional data in the same topic by changing the experimental conditions, such as XXXX. Some parts of the paper have been already shown in the first paper, e.g. Fig. 7(a) and the corresponding text.

The most important problem is that these two papers XXXX. In their first paper, they concluded XXXX. To confirm this conclusion, I suggested that some experiments should be performed. They did not do as I suggested. Now they must have done some more experiments and present a new conclusion. This new statement seems to be more reasonable. However, the authors should discuss the different models presented in their own papers. I would like to see whether the previous conclusion is still correct. If not, please tell us why?

Since the paper contains some new results (as far as I understand), I suggest it can be accepted for publication. A few revisions should be considered by the authors:

后面提了三个小问题：1, 参考文献2引用有问题。 2，一个图的说明要详细点。3，某个方面的参考文献要加多几篇。

上一篇文章他提出来的问题我们已经详细解释过了，编辑看后同意我们的观点，直接接收了文章，没把回复意见给他看，所以他至今还没跟我们交流过。都已经过了好几个月了，老外的科研态度真是严肃、执着啊！太佩服了！

[ Last edited by chenfire on 2009-10-25 at 14:45 ]

回复此楼