应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 交流 » 一篇难产论文的投稿直播（连载）
221/3返回列表123下一页
查看: 4456  |  回复: 56
查看全部回帖 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
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

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

[交流] 一篇难产论文的投稿直播（连载）

2009年年初，模拟出现新的结果，和老师探讨用理论分析，感觉很有价值，于是打算向比较高的杂志投稿，初步敲定PRL，准备开始写文章。于是调研PRL的文章结构，写作语气，格式。然后对模拟结果进行系统理论分析，跟经典理论计算结果对比等。
2009年4月份，理论分析完成，文章初稿也写出来了，请老师帮忙修改。
2009年5月7日左右，初稿完成，投到PRL了。
心理多少有些侥幸，因为毕竟PRL的档次有点太高，权当实验了。

[ Last edited by lby1258 on 2010-6-5 at 10:29 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢
1楼 2009-12-17 12:14:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

文章被PRL拒掉

2009年5月20日左右，收到PRL编辑部的来信，文章没有送审稿人评审，直接被编辑拒掉，理由是这方面研究不够普遍，不能吸引人。
小受打击，毕竟早就有心理准备了。重新修改文章，决定投一个档次合适的杂志。
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2009-12-17 12:18:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

转投其它杂志

2009年5月26日，论文经过重新修改，以及格式改变，选定Phys. Plasmas，投其中的letter。论文投出，等待中……
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2009-12-17 12:20:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

第一次审稿意见

经过漫长的等待，于2009年7月14日收到编辑的来信及两个审稿人的意见，具体如下：
Dear ***
We have received the referee comments on your paper titled "*******", which indicate that it is not appropriate for publication in Physics of Plasmas in its present form. Please revise your manuscript as suggested and submit separate detailed responses to the referees, including a detailed description of the revisions made in the paper. The revised manuscript and responses are due as soon as possible via the PXP web site. These will then be sent back to the referee for further review.
We also need the copyright form for the paper. You can upload a pdf file of the form with the files for your revised paper, or you may email or fax it to us at the number below. The form is available via a link at the bottom of the PXP page. Please feel free to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,

Editor's Comments:
Please make the following changes in your revised paper.
1. The length of this paper appears to be close to the four-typeset-page limit. If it runs over when typeset, you will be asked to shorten it in the galley proofs.
2. Remove personal pronouns-I, we, our-from the abstract.
3. Each machine mentioned in the abstract or in the text must be given a reference that will direct the reader to general information on its background, design, history, etc. The reference in the abstract should be the full citation, enclosed in brackets. The reference in the text should be numbered in sequence. Give a reference for ***.

Reviewer Comments:
Referee #1 (Remarks):
Comments on Manuscript #***
The manuscript contains significant new research contributions to ***.
After addressing the comments listed below, this manuscript is acceptable for publication in Physics of Plasmas.
The detailed comments are:
(1) ***********
(2) ***********
(3) ***********

Referee #2 (Remarks):
The main result of the paper is observation *******. As stated by authors, ****, but I can expect the *****. This result looks VERY suspicious to me.
The authors only analyzed ********.
The paper is written unclearly. *******.
The paper also contains numerous misleading phrases. For example,*********

The authors must:
1) ******
2) ******
3) ******
Otherwise, I recommend the rejection of this paper.

问题挺多的，第一个审稿人的问题很核心，需要仔细回答，第二个审稿人似乎语气很敌视。
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2009-12-17 12:24:58
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

第一次回复

两个审稿人的意见都不是很容易回答，经过十多天的反复琢磨以及跟别人的探讨修改，于2009年7月23日提交修改稿及回复，具体如下：

一、给编辑和审稿人的信：
Dear Editor and Referees:
        Thank you for your review. We have received your comments and revised the manuscript as suggested.
Detailed responses to the referees and description of the revisions are put in the attached files.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
*****

修改列表：
List of changes.
1. The personal pronouns have been removed from the abstract, and relevant sentences have been rewritten as the editor pointed out,.
2. A reference on **** has been provided.
3. We have restated the part of “*****” in a more clear way.
4. We have replaced the Figure 4 with Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 in the new Manuscript, in order to make the context better organized and convey ideas more clearly.
Figure 4 shows *****. In Figure 4(b), *******.
Figure 5 presents ********.
        5. The Eq. (2) in the old manuscript has been removed.
6. We have also removed some unnecessary sentences, rephrased a handful of inappropriate sentences, and added a few sentences.

给审稿人的回复：
Reply to referee 1.
Thanks for referee’s helpful comments.
Detailed reply is as follows:
(1) ********
(2) ********
(3) ********
Reply to referee 2
Thanks for referee’s helpful, stimulating comments on our manuscript. After careful consideration and further check, we reply to the comments as follow.
1)********
2)********
3)********
4)********
5)********
6)********


修稿稿提交后又是漫长的等待
赞一下 回复此楼
5楼2009-12-17 12:30:36
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

第二次审稿意见

漫长的等待后于2009年8月13日再次收到编辑的来信，附带第二次审稿意见。第一次修改不是很成功，第一个审稿人的一个问题没有完全回答清楚，而第二个审稿人的敌意更浓，第二个审稿人直接指出文中中所用的一个参考文献的结果是错误的，并指出那个参考文献的作者所做的东西是错误的，所以建议拒稿。具体如下：

Dear Prof. *****
We have received the referees' comments on your paper titled "*******", which indicate that it is not appropriate for publication in Physics of Plasmas in its present form. Please revise your manuscript as suggested and submit a detailed response to each referee, including a detailed description of the revisions made in the paper. The revised manuscript and response are due in the coming weeks ahead as the time deadline for Letters is much stricter, via the PXP web site. These will then be sent back to each referee for further review.
Please feel free to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,


Reviewer Comments:
Referee #1 Evaluations:
Please see the attached file.

Referee #2 Evaluations:
On my request in the previous report, the authors did not discuss****.
Moreover, the authors are trying to avoid the discussion of******. By changing in the paper "******" to "*****", they only increase my concern about its appropriateness.
Although Gozadinos's paper [ref 13] has been published somewhere, it is, to my opinion, erroneous. It describes *******.No prove that this method is stable and leads to steady state solution was given in the paper.
On my comment that the paper contains misleading phrases,********
I recommend to reject this paper.
赞一下 回复此楼
7楼2009-12-17 13:19:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

第二次意见回复

看到第二次审稿意见很头疼，仔细回答了第一个审稿人的意见，并决定向编辑申请更改第二个审稿人。8月29日提交第二次回复，具体如下：
Dear Editor,
We are formally asking for replacing the second referee with a new reviewer, based on the following grounds:

1.        *********
2.        *********
3.        ***********
赞一下 回复此楼
8楼2009-12-17 13:24:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

文章被拒，晕倒中

2009年9月29日文章被拒,深受打击（第一个审稿人同意发表，第二个审稿人不同意发表，编辑送给仲裁，仲裁支持第二个审稿人观点，文章被拒），具体如下：
Dear Prof. ****

Because the second referee was still opposed to publication, the Editors sent your paper to an adjudicator.
Enclosed is the adjudicator's report on your paper titled "******," which indicates that the paper is not appropriate for publication in Physics of Plasmas. The Editors have reviewed the file and agree with this opinion. The paper is, therefore, rejected.
Should you choose to thoroughly revise your manuscript to address the concerns raised during the review process, the Editors would consider a resubmission of the paper. It would then be treated as a new submission and the review process would begin anew. Please briefly describe the changes made in the submission cover letter so that the Editors can verify the changes before agreeing to take the new manuscript under review.

Wishing you success in your research endeavors.

Sincerely,
赞一下 回复此楼
9楼2009-12-17 13:25:49
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

重新选择杂志投稿

这次投稿被拒受到打击了，决定重新选择期刊。
经过慎重选择，决定投PPCF的BRIEF COMMUNICATION。
顺便说一句，本专业的专业性期刊的影响因子都不太高IF2~3之间，也不多，所以选择范围不是太多。
2009年9月30日，将文章格式改为PPCF要求的格式，投出。
漫长等待ing……
赞一下 回复此楼
11楼2009-12-17 13:31:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
zhenghaiw(金币+8,VIP+0):感谢连载 12-17 13:44
2009年12月10日经过两个多月时间的漫长等待，终于等到审稿意见了，具体如下：

We have now received the referee report(s) on this brief communication, which is being considered by Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion. The referee(s) have recommended that you make some amendments to your brief communication.
Please can you amend your brief communication following the referee recommendations, and then send us the amended version together with a list of the changes you have made. This will help the referee(s) to make the final decision.
We would be grateful if you could complete your amendments as quickly as possible and send in your amended brief communication and electronic files by 8 January 2010. If we receive your brief communication after this date, it may be treated as a new submission, so please let us know if you will need more time.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely

First referee's report
This paper reports on ****. The paper quite concise, clear and straight to the point. It shows an interesting *****.
These phenomena are interesting, nevertheless the authors must provide more clarification on the physics, numerics and originality of this phenomenon before acceptance of their manuscript.
1. *****
2. ****
3. *****
4. *****
5. *****
6. *****
7. *****
8.*****
9. *****

Second referee's report
This paper presents some new and interesting results on t*****. The modeling predicts******. This work has potentially significant implications for *****. The manuscript is well written, and is suitable for publication in Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, but it would be helpful if the authors could further clarify the following points:
1. ******；
2. ******。

问题依旧不太少，不过审稿人态度比较正面，没有上次第二个审稿人那么有敌意了
赞一下(10人) 回复此楼
12楼2009-12-17 13:36:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 schf0301 的主题更新
221/3返回列表123下一页
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭