| 查看: 4423 | 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
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有41人回复
-
回收溶剂求助
已经有7人回复
-
硝基苯如何除去
已经有3人回复
-
A期刊撤稿
已经有4人回复
-
垃圾破二本职称评审标准
已经有17人回复
-
投稿Elsevier的Neoplasia杂志，到最后选publishing options时页面空白，不能完成投稿
已经有22人回复
-
EST投稿状态问题
已经有7人回复
-
毕业后当辅导员了，天天各种学生超烦
已经有4人回复
-
求助文献
已经有3人回复
-
三无产品还有机会吗
已经有6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
回复
|
1月21日，经过仔细阅读草稿，将意见添加到草稿中，回答如下 Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to the referee’s report. Detailed changes are listed as follows: 1. We have added a paragraph in page 7 “****” This paragraph answers the referee’s questions 1 and 2. 2. We have added in the last paragraph in page 3 two sentences “******” These two sentences answer the referee’s question 3. 3. We have added in the last paragraph in page 3 two sentences about simulation parameters “******” The two sentences answer the referee’s question 6. Best regards **** [ Last edited by schf0301 on 2010-1-26 at 08:59 ] |
47楼2010-01-26 08:43:11
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