24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4054)
>文献求助 (441)
>虫友互识 (356)
>导师招生 (283)
>考博 (159)
>招聘信息布告栏 (148)
>硕博家园 (142)
>休闲灌水 (100)
>论文道贺祈福 (97)
>博后之家 (90)
>考研 (77)
>论文投稿 (74)
>教师之家 (59)
>基金申请 (57)
>公派出国 (46)
>找工作 (44)

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

danshuixmc

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1316.5
红花: 1
帖子: 161
在线: 74.1小时
虫号: 796480
注册: 2009-06-17
专业: 碳素材料与超硬材料

[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