| 查看: 659 | 回复: 5 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
schf0301金虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
大修意见，能接受吗
|
||
|
文章的修改意见回来了，审稿人意见如下。 大家看看认真回答修改，接收的几率多大呀 Dear Dr. **, The review for the above referenced manuscript has been completed and the reviewers have suggested that major revisions to the text and figures be made before your manuscript is considered for publication. I agree with their assessment and I have attached the reviewers' comments to assist you in revising your manuscript. If you would like to offer a rebuttal to their comments, please send your comments to me. If you agree with our assessment of your manuscript and can make the revisions, please submit a revised copy of the manuscript and any other comments you wish to add for its consideration for publication. Sincerely, ***** Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The paper deals with a new *** code for ** simulations. It is clear written. I only have two problems. 1. In Fig. 2 the *** is shown. Whereas the ******. 2. An ***** is found. It properties agree with ****. But *****. I doubt that this *** is realistic. The authors should calculate ****, to prove that the *** can be obtained. The *** is needed for the main point of the paper the *****. Unfortunally only a *** is given. So it was not possible to compare the expected **** with measurements. The **** should be given in absolute numbers and a comparison with measurements should be done. I will send a pdf file with comments bu mail. Reviewer #2:****** 1. Is this an engineering contribution? Yes, the paper describes numerical results ****. 2. Is it significant enough to warrant publication in ****? Yes, but major revision is needed. 3. Does it adequately acknowledge earlier work in the field? Yes. 4. Is the writing clear and, if not, can you suggest improvements to the author(s)? Major revision is needed, see below. 4.1 Authors selected the simulation parameters as follows; ****. These parameter are considerably lower than existing large **** devices such as **** etc. Authors should explain why they selected these parameters for the simulation. 4.2 Authors developed the *** module into their model. This module does not consider **** process on the divertor surface. It is well known that the *** process should be included for the design of large **** devices, such as ***. Authors should explain why they ignore the *** process. 4.3 Regarding the comment 4.2, just above, the authors should refer the papers by Dr. ****, who developed the**** code, which was used for the **** design. 4.4 Authors reported ******. However these results cannot stand for design of *** devices such as ***, because inadequate simulation parameters and *** modeling. Authors should show the impact of their results on experimental results, and/or on design of *** devices. For instance, authors should compare their *** results with experimental results. 4.5 Based on comments above, I would conclude that this paper needs the major revision. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料调剂
已经有11人回复
-
268求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
085600材料与化工调剂
已经有23人回复
-
283分材料与化工求调剂
已经有28人回复
-
材料科学与工程考研
已经有9人回复
-
化学调剂求助
已经有6人回复
-
387求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
305求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
297求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
求调剂，一志愿北京中医药大学
已经有3人回复
sowang
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 29 (小学生)
- 金币: 3616.1
- 散金: 884
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 617
- 在线: 522小时
- 虫号: 495601
- 注册: 2008-01-15
- 专业: 其他无机非金属材料
2楼2010-03-24 10:50:33
supermight
铜虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 253.7
- 散金: 9682
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 2260
- 在线: 444.4小时
- 虫号: 533648
- 注册: 2008-03-26
- 专业: 金属材料表面科学与工程
3楼2010-03-24 10:50:40
mnmxt
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 8 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 7209.3
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 323
- 在线: 388.1小时
- 虫号: 369175
- 注册: 2007-05-12
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生化分析及生物传感
4楼2010-03-24 11:07:27
xinren08
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 5535.2
- 散金: 1100
- 红花: 4
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 5336
- 在线: 116.2小时
- 虫号: 506199
- 注册: 2008-02-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 运筹学
5楼2010-03-24 11:27:33
6楼2010-03-29 16:41:58
