24小时热门版块排行榜

南方科技大学公共卫生及应急管理学院2026级博士研究生招生报考通知（长期有效）

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

jiesy2007

金虫 (正式写手)

SEPI: 1
应助: 0 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.001
金币: 1196.5
红花: 2
帖子: 358
在线: 54.2小时
虫号: 784231
注册: 2009-06-01
专业: 零件加工制造

[交流] mechatronics 拒稿信的感想已有1人参与

从去年三月中旬开始试验，6月开始准备论文，10月投稿，经历三次据稿。今天收到第三次据稿信，前两次给的据稿理由都是比较泛泛，没实际意义，这一次三个评审人给出了比较细致的意见，均说文章需要做大的修改。
Reviewer #1: This paper presents a numerical simulation based on the physical model for the flow of ECFs.This paper is well organized and there is a good agreement between simulation and experiment of ECF flow.However the following questions should be clarified in order to be accepted as paper.

(1)You applied Maxwell Stress Gradient Model for the analysis of the ECF fluid, FF-1sub(EHA2).
To assure your proposition, it is recommended to include more exp. results with different condition(i.e. with different inout voltage or different ECF fluid).
(2)Please explain a little detail how your proposed ECF fluid model is ultilized in ANSYS analysis.
(3)The max. flow velocity from simulation is 600% greater than that from experiment.
What is the reason of so fast speed in simulation?
(4)In Fig. 7(a) the fluid flow is not symmetrical. Please explain it.

我找遍全部论文，也没有发现他指出的这些东西跟我文章有关，尤其是Fig. 7(a)，我的文章中没有Fig. 7(a)，只有Fig. 7。不知道什么原因。

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors claimed that “****”is developed and analyzed, and that their design is advantageous in terms of “*******”. However, these claims are unsubstantiated, hence this paper is incomplete. Some specific comments about the paper are as follows:
技术性错误：（自己总结的，完全可以避免的）
1.* In overall, the paper needs significant improvement on English grammar and rewritting of certain sections. Terminology also should be consistent, e.g., in regards to the radii, choose between inside/outside or internal/external.
2.* There are problems with the formatting of the equation numbering. Some of the numbers are printed below the equations, 1, 2, 6 and 4.（公式编号窜行）
3.* Figure fonts/sizes are varying and sometimes difficult to read. （图被我缩的过小）
4.* Figure 12 has both "n_in" and "n_out" labelled on the vertical axis. It is not clear what is actually presented in this figure. (截图的时候出现失误)
原则性;
5. In the introduction, ** were classified into the following two categories: **. There are also other applications of **, such as **and **. The authors could have classified the devices in a more general manner:**and (ii) **.
6. In Sec. 5.2, the authors conclude that：*******。In order to draw these conclusions, the authors' design needs to be properly compared to the existing designs in the literature (e.g., [8] and [9]). A more complete literature survey and justification of the current paper in regards to its contributions are required.

7. The **test that the authors prsented is unclear. Some of the terms presented in the tables 1, 2 and 3 are not clear how they were evaluated (nor defined - in Chinese), thus it is hard to relate the numbers in the tables.

Reviewer #3: The paper discusses the ****. There are several important details not presented in the paper.

1. The authors did not state clearly the main contributions, in the light of the current work in the literature. What is the novelty involved?

2. The optimisation and FEM modelling of the design is not provided.

3. More details of the experimental tests have to be provided to highlight the advantages and strengths of the proposed design.

综观上述三个评审人的意见，得到一下感想：
1. 投稿的时候一定要将上传完成的文件下载下来仔细看看，认真比对，第二个评审人提出的由四个意见就是我的粗心大意引起的直接后果。
2. introduction 部分一定要全面、准确的描述前人的成果，点名自己研究的意义。
3. 结论一定要严谨，要紧扣正文，切忌画蛇添足。

欢迎大家根据这几点评审意见交流！

[ Last edited by jiesy2007 on 2010-2-6 at 12:13 ]

回复此楼