24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (2751)
>虫友互识 (259)
>文献求助 (180)
>导师招生 (157)
>考博 (111)
>休闲灌水 (71)
>论文投稿 (52)
>论文道贺祈福 (45)
>硕博家园 (37)
>博后之家 (35)
>基金申请 (33)
>教师之家 (30)
>公派出国 (23)
>招聘信息布告栏 (22)
>考研 (21)
>找工作 (20)

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

mengfanyih

木虫 (著名写手)

聪聪家族之贼拉深沉

应助: 3 (幼儿园)
金币: 1778.9
散金: 384
红花: 54
帖子: 2955
在线: 916.4小时
虫号: 678137
注册: 2008-12-20
性别: GG
专业: 电磁场与波

[交流] JAP初审完毕，大修，各位帮看一眼。

各位帮小弟看看，为啥大修呢，虽然我也觉得应该大修，但不知道我想的和审稿人想的是否一致。我觉得大修的两个主要原因在于：第一，英语太烂，写作太烂；第二，两个审稿人的各自的最后一个问题。是这样吗？

另外，这种情况被录用的几率有多大。我怎么总觉得心里没底呢。
Dear ****:

Your manuscript, referenced below, has been reviewed by two referees for publication in the Journal of Applied Physics. It has been found to be of potential interest.

The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form for publication in the Journal of Applied Physics. The reviewers have delineated several deficiencies and recommends major revisions which may render the work suitable for publication.

The quality of the English in your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.

Please edit the ENTIRE paper.

The reviewer's comments are included below and/or are attached. If you are willing and able to respond to each of the reviewer's critical comments, we would consider a revised manuscript. Either include a list of changes that addresses each point and indicates how the manuscript has been revised as a separate document titled, Response Letter or submit a copy of the manuscript with the exact locations of the revisions titled, Supplemental Material.

The revised manuscript should be returned to the Editor promptly. A manuscript returned more than two months later will generally be regarded as a new submission and will be assigned a new receipt date.

Please go to the URL below to submit the revised version. To meet AIP Production requirements, please provide a separate figure file for each cited figure number (all parts in one file), in addition to your article-text file.

Thank you for the opportunity to examine this work. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at jap-edoffice@aip.org.

Sincerely yours,

Roy Benedek

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
Argonne National Laboratory
Building 203 A-106
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL. 60439-4843
Tel: 630-252-8700
E-mail: jap@anl.gov

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuscript #JR09-5772:

Mechanical Deficiencies: （这个词是啥意思？）

Please submit your paper in the proper format - visit http://jap.aip.org/jap/authors/i ... ributors#manuscript for details.

Please supply us with a list of changes. Your list of changes CANNOT be within the cover letter. Please click on the "add file" button and upload your detailed revisions as a separate document titled, Response Letter or submit a copy of the manuscript with the exact locations of the revisions titled, Supplemental Material.

Please submit your revised article highlight/underline free. Be advised our publisher does not accept red lettering. If you wish to keep your marked version for reviewing purposes, please also add a clear publication-ready copy.

*********************************
Editor's Comments:

Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Major Revision
Sufficient New Physics in an Applied Area: Yes
Appropriate Length: Yes
Well Organized and Clearly Written: No
Good Abstract: Yes
Clear Figures: Yes
Good Title: No
Adequate References: Yes
TECHNICAL QUALITY RATING: Good
PRESENTATION RATING: Marginal

Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author):

The authors study **********（介绍了一下我的工作）. This seems potentially useful information, which may well interest a subset of the JAP readership.
The analysis looks to be generally correct. Some major and some minor changes are needed before I would recommend publication.

1. In the title: change "Wave" to "Waves"

2. 2nd sentence of Introduction: "It is always desirable..." is an exaggeration.

3. After eq. (2): change "identical" to "identity"

4. The quantities in eq. (4) are wave numbers, not wave vectors as stated.
And the expressions in eq. (4) are wrong because these quantities must depend on frequency explicitly.

5. A theoretical analysis is presented and illustrated with some numerical examples. Fine. But the authors also present some corresponding results from COMSOL - this is gratuitous. Unless a good argument can be made for their inclusion (which I cannot see), the COMSOL results should be removed.

6. In any practical application of a normal-incidence 'Faraday chiral medium' reflector, of the type proposed here by the authors, how will the incident wave be distinguished from the reflected wave? This is an important point which needs to be discussed.

Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Major Revision
Sufficient New Physics in an Applied Area: Yes
Appropriate Length: Yes
Well Organized and Clearly Written: No
Good Abstract: No
Clear Figures: Yes
Good Title: Yes
Adequate References: No
TECHNICAL QUALITY RATING: Good
PRESENTATION RATING: Marginal

Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author):

The authors have analyzed *****. Although the
underlying work had been done by others (who have been cited), the authors have indeed taken
a "deep" look at the results of the boundary-value problem to devise polarization-engineering
techniques.

Although the work reported is potentially publishable in JAP, the manuscript
needs significant revision, because the presented results apply to ideal (nondissipative)
materials rather than to realistic (dissipative) materials. Following are the issues that the authors must
competently address during the revision stage:

1. The abstract is badly written (as is quite common these days). An abstract
must never been written as an introduction to the full paper. Even more
importantly, and abstract must never be written as an advertisement of the full paper.
The current abstract is written as and advertisement. It should have been written
as an extremely short but complete paper that (i) does not either explicitly ["In this paper..."]
or implicitly ["....is done/described/discussed"] mention the full paper, and (ii) contains
the methods used and the chief results obtained.

2. The constitutive equations (1) come from Ref. 13, not Ref. 14. This must be
clarified in the revised version.

3. Much of the material contained in Section 2 is already available in Ref. 6. This must be
clarified in the revised version.

4. The following "sentence" is grammatically incorrect:
此处省去N行，真是汗，这么多语法错误。

5. For a slab problem, COMSOL is not needed at all. The problem can be and has been solved by standard analytic means. Therefore, all COMSOL results must be removed from the manuscript. Neither should the words "COMSOL" or "simulation" be mentioned in the revised version. (One cannot say with a straight face that a calculator was used to check the result 3 x 4 = 12, and
not be laughed at.)

6. All known isotropic chiral materials are dissipative in the regimes where their chirality is
appreciable. The authors must take realistic values of their constitutive properties
(look at: Gomez et al., Dec. 2008 issue of IEEE Trans. MTT for realistic values)
and add results to show the effects of dissipation.

回复此楼