| 查看: 4945 | 回复: 56 | |||
| 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
各位大神，目前国内有哪些比较好用的逆合成软件？
已经有14人回复
-
国社科系统bug了，是不是要放榜了？
已经有10人回复
-
现代”学阀”该如何界定
已经有9人回复
-
课题组招2027级博士 上海工程技术大学 激光智能制造方向
已经有4人回复
-
上海工程技术大学 激光智能制造课题组 2027级博士研究生招生
已经有3人回复
-
上海工程技术大学激光智能制造课题组｜2027级博士研究生招生公告
已经有11人回复
-
申博发邮件
已经有11人回复
-
我的奶奶
已经有3人回复
schf0301
金虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 24 (小学生)
- 金币: 1232.4
- 散金: 2791
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1611
- 在线: 411小时
- 虫号: 763571
- 注册: 2009-05-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
修改后提交
|
看到审稿意见真的很头疼，现在发现很害怕看这篇文章了，不过还得硬下头皮来回答审稿人的意见。我发现这一过程真的很难，比写文章还难，需要琢磨审稿人字里行间的意思。 进过一周时间思考，探讨，小心翼翼的回答了审稿人的每个意见。 2009年12月17日，回复和修正稿正式提交。 又是漫长的等待…… 希望这次能被接受，到现在为止这篇文章好难产呀。快要过圣诞节了，2009年估计诞生不了了，祈祷ing…… 回复如下： Dear Editor and Referees: Thank you for your review. We have revised the manuscript as suggestions. Detailed responses to the referee and list of changes are summarized as follows. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely List of changes 1. ****** 2. ****** Reply to referee 1 1. ****** 2. ****** 3. ****** 4. ****** 5. ****** 6. ****** 7. ****** 8. ****** 9. ****** Reply to referee 2 • ***** • ***** |
14楼2009-12-17 13:45:13
schf0301
金虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 24 (小学生)
- 金币: 1232.4
- 散金: 2791
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1611
- 在线: 411小时
- 虫号: 763571
- 注册: 2009-05-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
2楼2009-12-17 12:18:09
schf0301
金虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 24 (小学生)
- 金币: 1232.4
- 散金: 2791
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1611
- 在线: 411小时
- 虫号: 763571
- 注册: 2009-05-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
3楼2009-12-17 12:20:20
schf0301
金虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 24 (小学生)
- 金币: 1232.4
- 散金: 2791
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 1611
- 在线: 411小时
- 虫号: 763571
- 注册: 2009-05-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 等离子体物理
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。 |
4楼2009-12-17 12:24:58