| 查看: 4472 | 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
招博士
已经有4人回复
-
救命帖
已经有7人回复
-
限项规定
已经有6人回复
-
西南交通大学国家级人才团队2026年博士研究生招生（考核制）—机械、材料、力学方向
已经有3人回复
-
英文综述是否需要润色及查重
已经有5人回复
-
为什么nbs上溴 没有产物点出现呢
已经有9人回复
-
最失望的一年
已经有18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
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, |
9楼2009-12-17 13:25:49
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