24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3757)
>虫友互识 (479)
>休闲灌水 (232)
>导师招生 (213)
>文献求助 (189)
>考博 (83)
>论文道贺祈福 (58)
>博后之家 (56)
>论文投稿 (55)
>硕博家园 (52)
>考研 (47)
>基金申请 (39)
>公派出国 (30)
>招聘信息布告栏 (28)
>找工作 (21)
>教师之家 (16)

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

schf0301

金虫 (著名写手)

应助: 24 (小学生)
金币: 1232.4
散金: 2791
红花: 4
帖子: 1611
在线: 411小时
虫号: 763571
注册: 2009-05-05
性别: GG
专业: 等离子体物理

[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