24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 2646  |  回复: 9

yaozhangwh

新虫 (初入文坛)

[交流] 第一次投稿,两个评审意见相差很大,咋办已有9人参与

投了篇PHYS REV E,两个月了昨天回来了评审意见
These comments suggest that the present version of the manuscript is
not suitable for publication in the Physical Review.  However, if you
feel that you can refute the criticisms, we will give further
consideration.  Please accompany any resubmittal by a summary of the
changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and
criticisms.

First Referee
The paper contains the results of the numerical
simulation with little analysis of the data. The method is fairly
standard and the results are consistent with expectations. Similar
problems have been solved by others. The new twist in this paper is
that the authors consider dielectric layers that coat the electrodes.
In my opinion, the paper does not provide sufficient new information
and insights to justify its publication in the archival literature.

How can the authors improve the paper? They could possibly ........

Second Referee
The results appear interesting to me and
obviously obtained by careful calculations. The presentation is
accessible and the figures are insightful. I estimate that the paper
can be recommended for publication in the PRE, after consideration of
a few suggestions.
大家觉得我修改的话,有希望搞定第一个评审部
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

smilerobin

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

要有足够的新意啊
2楼2010-04-04 11:37:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhangbin07

荣誉版主 (知名作家)

新虫 (初入文坛)

优秀版主优秀版主

第一个审稿人不看好啊,LZ好好修改一下,可以再重投,换审稿人。
If you can't take a few risks now so early in your career you probably never will.
3楼2010-04-04 11:44:11
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

paperpublishing

铜虫 (著名写手)

好好修改,有机会
RPisalwaysinbalance
4楼2010-04-04 11:50:47
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

燕孤鸿

金虫 (著名写手)

新意不足啊
人若无名,便可专心
5楼2010-04-04 11:57:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

长临河

铜虫 (正式写手)

认真修改并回答好第一个审稿人的意见,把工作的新意解释清楚,
应该可以修改通过吧?
6楼2010-04-04 14:54:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

aspect3000

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

In my opinion, the paper does not provide sufficient new information
and insights to justify its publication in the archival literature.
7楼2010-04-04 15:26:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

tlmowen09

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

一定要好好修改 按照要求修改
编辑没有锯掉 说明还有回旋的余地
8楼2010-04-04 16:13:33
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yaozhangwh

新虫 (初入文坛)

谢谢大家了,其实我觉得新意上应该是没有问题的,这个方向是我老板让我做的,是有人算过做过类似的模型,但他们加的条件很简单和我的不一样,算的问题也不一样,而且我的模型也改进了,不然第二个审稿人也不会说 the figures are insightful,感觉第一个审稿人写的意见就根据我的introducation来写的,等假完了再和老板好好算量了
9楼2010-04-04 18:19:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qqgod

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
我这回也遇到了相似的情况
不知道楼主的文章怎么样了?
10楼2010-09-23 16:48:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 yaozhangwh 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见