| ²é¿´: 856 | »Ø¸´: 9 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
magnetiteͳæ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[½»Á÷]
ÂÛÎı»¾ÜµÄÔÒò
|
||
|
°¦£¬ÂÛÎÄÓÖ±»¾ÜÁË£¬×ܽáÒ»µã¾ÍÊÇÒ»¶¨Òª¾¡¿ÉÄÜÌá¸ßÂÛÎĵÄÖÊÁ¿¡£ ¶ÔÕâÆªÂÛÎı¾À´¾ÍûÓеף¬×Ô¼ºÓÖûÓиĽøµÄ˼·£¬¾ÍͶ³öÈ¥ÇëÉó¸åÈËÖ¸µãÖ¸µã¡£ 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 ] |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
0703»¯Ñ§Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ20È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Öпƴó070300»¯Ñ§£¬314·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
288Çóµ÷¼Á£¬Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÄÏÀí¹¤´óѧ071005
ÒѾÓÐ14È˻ظ´
070300»¯Ñ§279Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
086003µ÷¼ÁÇóÖú
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
µ÷¼Á »¯Ñ§ 307
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸085502£¬267·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϵ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
¸´ÊÔµ÷¼Á£¬Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Ö£ÖÝ´óѧ²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤289·Ö
ÒѾÓÐ22È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì322
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
imyourkobe
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 26 (СѧÉú)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.126
- ½ð±Ò: 7477
- É¢½ð: 6
- ºì»¨: 9
- ɳ·¢: 3
- Ìû×Ó: 1688
- ÔÚÏß: 459.7Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 183723
- ×¢²á: 2006-02-13
- רҵ: ¼ÆËã»úÈí¼þ
¡ï
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû½»Á÷
Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû½»Á÷
| ѧϰÁË¡£ºÃÏñÊÇÂ¥Ö÷×Ô¼ºÒª¶àÏÂЩ¹¦·ò£¬ÌرðÊÇʵÑé·½ÃæµÄÃèÊö°É¡£ |
9Â¥2009-12-04 21:31:32
yinhuanshun
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 110 (¸ßÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 14693.7
- É¢½ð: 3688
- ºì»¨: 11
- Ìû×Ó: 5171
- ÔÚÏß: 378.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 200018
- ×¢²á: 2006-02-27
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Éú»¯·ÖÎö¼°ÉúÎï´«¸Ð

2Â¥2009-12-04 17:45:35
lmm5373
ľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 18 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 3655.5
- É¢½ð: 2814
- ºì»¨: 5
- Ìû×Ó: 3818
- ÔÚÏß: 1537.3Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 740052
- ×¢²á: 2009-04-04
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ƫ΢·Ö·½³Ì

3Â¥2009-12-04 17:46:50
yam_yang
½ð³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 1 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 1096.2
- É¢½ð: 3066
- Ìû×Ó: 1313
- ÔÚÏß: 116.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 834743
- ×¢²á: 2009-08-26
- רҵ: ÐÅÏ¢°²È«
4Â¥2009-12-04 18:21:44













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥