| 查看: 1604 | 回复: 11 | |||
| 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 | |||
蚂-蚁至尊木虫 (职业作家)
|
[交流]
被拒的审稿意见
|
||
|
我把编辑、主编和审稿人的总体意见贴上，大伙给看看，具体的没贴 I have received the comments of the reviewers on your manuscript. The referees have raised a number of significant concerns about the work. Copies of the referees' comments are listed below. From my study of the manuscript and the referees' comments, I have reached the decision that publication would be premature. Thus, I am rejecting the manuscript. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Soil Science. We would be happy to consider your future work for publication. Editor-in-Chief: Your manuscript entitled "##############", which you submitted for consideration for publication in Soil Science, has been reviewed. Both of the reviewers have raised major concerns regarding the manuscript. A primary difficult with the presentation of your work is the state of the English presentation, many of the points you are attempting to comunicate are obscured by the English presentation. Also, major difficulties were note in the experimental design and data interpretation. Major difficulties were noted in the presentation of your experimental design, the description of the soil sample collection, and the interpretation of your data. Based on my study of the manuscript and the reviewers' comments, I am led to the conclusion that publication of the work would be premature. Thus, I must reject the manuscript. I would be happy to consider publication of a manuscript that fully addresses the concerns raised by the reviewers. Should you submit a revised manuscript, you would need to include a statement of how the original work was revised in response to each of the review comments. I regret that the decision not to publish is necessary. I do encourage you to consider Soil Science for your future publication needs. Reviewer #1: Overall, this manuscript is not in a publishable state. It needs quite a bit of revision and could then be resubmitted. Reviewer #2: The research described in this manuscript is made more difficult to understand technically by the difficult-to-understand English language usage. It would be really helpful to have an English-first author proof the text and then have a new submission. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
博士自荐
已经有3人回复
-
083200 初试305分 求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
292求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
22408 270分
已经有8人回复
-
一志愿2110，化学学硕310分，本科重点双非求调剂
已经有15人回复
-
070300化学学硕311分求调剂
已经有20人回复
-
085400 328分 求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
085801 总分275 本科新能源 求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
0854调剂
已经有6人回复
-
280求调剂
已经有8人回复
4楼2010-01-12 13:53:30
2楼2010-01-12 09:51:33
MYMHoun
木虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2492.2
- 帖子: 50
- 在线: 591.4小时
- 虫号: 345216
- 注册: 2007-04-14
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 可再生与替代能源利用中的
3楼2010-01-12 10:00:14
zjchenghao
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 424.8
- 散金: 500
- 帖子: 80
- 在线: 30.9小时
- 虫号: 692616
- 注册: 2009-01-14
- 专业: 劳动经济学
5楼2010-01-14 21:41:27
