| ²é¿´: 1797 | »Ø¸´: 22 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
chenfireľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
|
[½»Á÷]
ÓÐÒâ˼µÄ¾Àú¡ª¡ªÔâÓöÉó¸åÈË¡°Ñ°³ð¡±
|
||
|
5Ô·ÝͶµÄһƪÎÄÕ£¬±»Ò»¸öÉó¸åÈ˾ܸåºóÈÔ±»±à¼½ÓÊÕ²¢ÇÒ·¢±íÁË¡£ ÏêÇ飺http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1421078 ÏÖÔÚÐÂÎÄÕÂÓÖÂäµ½ÁËËûÊÖÉÏ£¬Ëû¶ÔÐÂÎÄÕµ¹ÊÇûÒâ¼û£¬µ«¶Ô¾ÉÎÄÕÂÈÔÈ»¹¢¹¢ÓÚ»³£¬ÒÔÏÂÊÇËûµÄÉó¸åÒâ¼û£º 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: ºóÃæÌáÁËÈý¸öСÎÊÌ⣺1, ²Î¿¼ÎÄÏ×2ÒýÓÃÓÐÎÊÌâ¡£ 2£¬Ò»¸öͼµÄ˵Ã÷ÒªÏêϸµã¡£3£¬Ä³¸ö·½ÃæµÄ²Î¿¼ÎÄÏ×Òª¼Ó¶à¼¸Æª¡£ ÉÏһƪÎÄÕÂËûÌá³öÀ´µÄÎÊÌâÎÒÃÇÒѾÏêϸ½âÊ͹ýÁË£¬±à¼¿´ºóͬÒâÎÒÃǵĹ۵㣬ֱ½Ó½ÓÊÕÁËÎÄÕ£¬Ã»°Ñ»Ø¸´Òâ¼û¸øËû¿´£¬ËùÒÔËûÖÁ½ñ»¹Ã»¸úÎÒÃǽ»Á÷¹ý¡£¶¼ÒѾ¹ýÁ˺ü¸¸öÔÂÁË£¬ÀÏÍâµÄ¿ÆÑÐ̬¶ÈÕæÊÇÑÏËà¡¢Ö´×Ű¡£¡Ì«Åå·þÁË£¡ [ Last edited by chenfire on 2009-10-25 at 14:45 ] |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
¼±Ðèµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
É격/¿¼²©
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
»¯¹¤Ñ§Ë¶294·Ö£¬Çóµ¼Ê¦ÊÕÁô
ÒѾÓÐ37È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
260Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÖÐũҵ071010£¬320Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
304Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Ç󲩵¼£üÉúÎïÖÊ»ù¶à¿×̼/³¬¼¶µçÈÝ·½Ïò£¬ÒÑÓÐÏà¹Ø³É¹û£¬Ñ°ÄÜÔ´²ÄÁÏ/̼²ÄÁÏ·½ÏòÀÏʦ
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
¶þ±½¼×ͪËáÀàÑÜÉúÎï
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
½ÓÊÜÈκε÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´

hfut1879
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (ÎÄ̳¾«Ó¢)
- Ó¦Öú: 3 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 35474.7
- É¢½ð: 2528
- ºì»¨: 15
- ɳ·¢: 4
- Ìû×Ó: 19179
- ÔÚÏß: 1542Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 573939
- ×¢²á: 2008-06-15
- רҵ: ½ðÊô¹¦ÄܲÄÁÏ
3Â¥2009-10-25 15:22:05
![]() ![]() |
2Â¥2009-10-25 14:55:33
wuss2005
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 1 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 5172.2
- ºì»¨: 2
- Ìû×Ó: 1198
- ÔÚÏß: 830.5Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 497485
- ×¢²á: 2008-02-02
- רҵ: ´ß»¯»¯Ñ§
4Â¥2009-10-25 15:28:26
shuxuei
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 5260.4
- É¢½ð: 2505
- ºì»¨: 6
- Ìû×Ó: 2235
- ÔÚÏß: 447.3Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 656469
- ×¢²á: 2008-11-17
- רҵ: ·ºº¯·ÖÎö
5Â¥2009-10-25 16:11:46













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥

50