24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3681)
>文献求助 (444)
>虫友互识 (322)
>导师招生 (315)
>考博 (174)
>论文投稿 (129)
>基金申请 (111)
>硕博家园 (90)
>博后之家 (80)
>休闲灌水 (80)
>招聘信息布告栏 (79)
>公派出国 (61)
>教师之家 (60)
>找工作 (58)
>考研 (48)
>论文道贺祈福 (36)

返回列表

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

halehit

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1977.7
散金: 166
红花: 8
帖子: 652
在线: 503.4小时
虫号: 539232
注册: 2008-04-03
专业: 零件成形制造

[交流] 大家是否碰到过这种情况？

第一个审稿人没意见
第二个审稿人认为我的文章没有科学性，没有达到该刊物所需的发表水平。
编辑（主编）说他通篇看了我的稿子，并不赞成第二个审稿人的意见，但建议我进行大量的小修。
邮件如下
Manuscript ID ***** entitled "**********" which you submitted to the Journal of ***********, has been reviewed.  The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
(There are no comments)

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In the ********, mere measurement and finite element simulation were carried out. The present paper lacks scientific contribution, and the present paper is not on acceptable levels for the publication of the journal.

Editor's Note:

I looked through your manuscript and disagree with Reviewer 2. However, I noticed a number of minor errors,  such as using both "a" and "the" to describe the same noun.

If I were to suggest one thing, it would be to include slightly bette r ******* structure. Other than that you might read through your paper again to catch the minor errors and to see if there are sections that could be strengthened with more comprehensive discussion.

回复此楼