| 查看: 1591 | 回复: 14 | |||
| 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 | |||
danshuixmc新虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
审稿意见分析 已有14人参与
|
||
|
Reviewer #2: The present paper reports some interesting results, but the style of writing is not satisfactory. Throughout the manuscript, the authors used to explain the experimental results, which are vivid to the readers who are experts in the field. Instead, the authors should discuss the results, particularly by comparing with the results reported in the literature. Quoting that the results are similar to those reported in the literature is not enough for a scientific discussion; instead, they need to focus on the points which are different from the literature. In other words, the authors should focus on the novelty of their work: how their work is different from available reports and how it is significant and important. > In such papers, the Conclusion should not be simply the summary of the paper (as the abstract is). The authors should briefly outline the past, present, and future of the research. How they design their research, and how the results can be useful for future studies. > > Reviewer #3: Overall, the paper is well written and the approach followed is clearly described. The work presented is thorough and the methodology followed is scientifically sound. The main drawback of the paper is that the originality of this work with respect to other works is not very clear. The fabrication of SWNTs by arc discharge methods is not a novel concept and neither is their application in field emission displays. The authors should better point out the originality of this work with respect to similar works that can be found in the literature. > Finally, the paper should be edited by someone proficient in the English language to eliminate grammatical errors. All spelling errors should also be corrected, both in the text and in the accompanying figures > > 请教：这种评述修改后再投此刊有戏吗？ 审稿人都没有具体意见，应该怎么改，请教达人。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售一区SCI文章T0P，我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急
已经有3人回复
-
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有3人回复
-
售一区SCI文章T0P，我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急
已经有3人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有3人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有3人回复
7楼2010-04-06 12:12:22
pepperp
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 40 (小学生)
- 金币: 45549.5
- 散金: 120
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 35287
- 在线: 902.5小时
- 虫号: 72931
- 注册: 2005-06-06
- 专业: 生物材料
2楼2010-04-06 10:54:07
nosema
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 6 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1607.5
- 散金: 4211
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 837
- 在线: 161.6小时
- 虫号: 714690
- 注册: 2009-03-04
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 病原真菌学
3楼2010-04-06 11:03:40
今天我也收到了相似的审稿意见，没有具体的说法，怎么办呢？
4楼2010-04-06 11:31:33
10