24小时热门版块排行榜

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

felicity6056

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

应助: 6 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.033
金币: 10209.1
散金: 389
红花: 6
帖子: 6701
在线: 1054.7小时
虫号: 762546
注册: 2009-05-04
专业: 化石能源储存与输送

[交流] 请看这个如何处理？（在线等）

前段时间投一篇文章给一个杂志，有三个审稿人，其中两个给的大修，一个给拒绝了，而且拒绝的特别彻底，编辑也给拒绝了。现在经过修改想另投他刊，可是老板说是再投此杂志，还要附上上次被拒的稿子和修改人意见以及自己的修改回答。但本人想作为新稿重投，请有经验的虫子看看如何是好？在线等，多谢啦！
Comments:
The authors provide a clear description of their work and provide an adequate positioning of their work in the context of already existing work in the open literature.
However, I regret that I must say that the added value of the work does not seem to justify publication in an archive journal. It is not clear how the present reduced model performs better than existing ones. Moreover, the numerical simulations do not provide much more information. In fact, they are even a bit suspicious (see comment below).
I have one specific question and 1 comment:
- question: why is the temperature 1500K chosen?
- comment: the air co-flow seems turbulent (Re = 3000 approximately), so how can laminar calculations be justified? Moreover, the only thing these simulations seem to show, is the impact of density (which is trivial) and confirmation of already presented chemical issues (which is also trivial, as chemistry can be seen as 'post-processing', in the physical flame structure.. So the added value is not clear. Moreover, more detail is required on the exact radiation and soot modelling.
编辑的拒绝信
Dear Dr. Zhou:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in xxx. It has been examined by expert reviewers whose reviews are enclosed. The reviewers have expressed serious reservations about this work that I don’t believe could be addressed through a standard major revision. In light of the comments received, I am unable to accept the manuscript for publication in xxx.

[ Last edited by felicity6056 on 2010-3-5 at 16:59 ]

回复此楼