24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3764)
>虫友互识 (536)
>文献求助 (462)
>导师招生 (345)
>考博 (185)
>休闲灌水 (182)
>论文投稿 (170)
>基金申请 (115)
>硕博家园 (111)
>招聘信息布告栏 (86)
>博后之家 (80)
>教师之家 (65)
>论文道贺祈福 (59)
>找工作 (39)
>公派出国 (39)
>考研 (39)

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

magnetite

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 106.6
散金: 10
红花: 1
帖子: 62
在线: 64.5小时
虫号: 493573
注册: 2008-01-10
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

[交流] 论文被拒的原因

唉，论文又被拒了，总结一点就是一定要尽可能提高论文的质量。
对这篇论文本来就没有底，自己又没有改进的思路，就投出去请审稿人指点指点。
Dear ##,

The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referee(s).

On the basis of the resulting report(s), it is our judgment that the
paper is unsuitable for publication in ***. We
enclose comments from the criticism that led to our decision.

Yours sincerely,

Samindranath Mitra
Associate Editor

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee A
----------------------------------------------------------------------

###I cannot recommend publication of this paper in its
present form. The quality of the data and its analysis is
comparatively poor, and not enough information is provided to consider
alternative explanations. In more detail:

***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee B --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors report on the experimental investigation of***. They start with a
general introduction on numerous inconsistencies in our current
understanding on such effects. With their paper they add another
"strange" phenomenon to this confusion but, in my point of view, they
do not really contribute significantly to the general problem. In this
respect, I would say that this paper is absolutely not appropriate for
***.

Additionally, as to the specific experiment I would have several
important questions which should be addressed before any publication,
most probably in a more specialized journal. At this moment the
authors present experiments on one sample with a quite limited choice
of parameters, that are mostly not even specified. Moreover, In view
of a lack of convincingly presented experimental facts, I find it
difficult to judge the theoretical interpretation on its merit alone
and would not really feel able to comment on this in more detail.

Generally, I got the impression that, also from the theoretical point
of view, the authors' approach adds much more confusion than it
resolves. Here I will limit myself on some important experimental
issues which might be helpful for the authors.

1) No parameters of the sample are given. In particular, ***. As an experimentalist,
I would expect, at the very least, that such parameters are determined
and that their importance for any interpretation is investigated and
clearly stated.

*****

[ Last edited by magnetite on 2009-12-4 at 16:34 ]

回复此楼