| 查看: 2386 | 回复: 17 | |||
abrastein金虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
可以申诉不？ 已有15人参与
|
|
http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1860420 上次的审稿意见。 编辑给出同样的意见，如下。是同一的审稿人，仍然是拒稿。这种情况下可以申诉不？ 怎么写？ Dear Dr. : I have received two reviews of your manuscript. One reviewer suggests relatively minor revisions. However, the other reviewer has found that the manuscript does not provide sufficient new physical insight to warrant publication in the Journal of Physical Chemistry. I’m sorry, but based on the serious concerns of this reviewer, I cannot accept your manuscript for publication at this time. However, if you believe that you can adequately address the concerns of this reviewer, then you are welcome to resubmit a revised version of your manuscript at a later date, in which case your manuscript will receive a new submittal date and new manuscript number. Thank you for considering the Journal of Physical Chemistry for the publication of your manuscript. With sincere regards, Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: This paper is not recommended because it does not provide new physical insights. Comments:Main comment:The authors carefully studied the possible origin of peak C2, which indeed seems specific to Fe/316 ss electrode in contact with the Ni bath. The data are rather convincing. As discussed below the title of this paper is totally misleading as Ni UPD is not yet proved. In fact, a quantitative analysis of the present data, which was not performed by the authors (charge measured under peak C2 in Fig. 3, mass change during fist scan in Fug. 4, charge under peak 3 in Fig. 5a), rather indicate that the observed phenomenon is not related to so-called metal UPD but to some other reacrtion, which needs to be identified. Metal UPD refers to the formation of one monolayer (very occasionally 2 monolayers) of a metal on a substrate. All quantitative estimates below are inconsistent with the formation of 1-2 Ni MLs. - The charge under peak C2 (100 µC/cm2) is far larger than that of a monolayer (0.59 µC/cm2). We agree with authors that this peak may be assigned to HER. Actually this would be a more pertinent conclusion than assigning peak C2 to NI UPD, because the charge associated with NI UPD (if it occurs) is negligible compared to the measured one. - The QCMB data are also showing that “something” occurs on the surface during the first negative scan of potential and then vanishes upon subsequent scanning. The authors should have converted the mass into a Ni thickness. A mass change of a few µg/cm2 is several orders of magnitude larger than the mass of a Ni monolayer (see Lachenwitzer and Magnussen in J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 7424-7430). The question therefore remains open concerning the observed phenomenon. - Also the anodic charge measured in Fig. 5, curve 2 (blue line) should be converted into a Ni thickness. This is not done. However, one may already estimate that it is again very large for a Ni monolayer as it is comparable to the charge corresponding to the dissolution of the Fe film from the Fe/316ss electrode.- Fig. 7 gives strong support that the phenomenon is related to HER and not Ni UPD. Other comments:- In introduction, in some references about Ni UPD, the solution composition plays a decisive role as anions are necessary to induce the phenomenon. In ionic liquids, the Au surface is also covered by an adlayer formed by the Al species. - pg 2 : The definition of Fe/316ss or Ni/316 ss electrodes should be complete. Give an estimate of the Fe and Ni thickness. - AFM imaging (Fig. 6) cannot be exploited as the features reflect “tip imaging” rather than surface imaging. These images must be removed or, better, done again with a fine AFM tip. Conclusion:In conclusion the authors have evidenced a real effect (related to peak C2 at a Fe/316 ss electrode in a Ni solution). However the conclusions they derive from their data are inconsistent with a Ni UPD process. This paper must therefore be rejected again as the conclusions are not supported by results. Alternatively the paper might be published after revision if the authors find a relevant conclusion to their study. Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: This paper is publishable subject to minor revisions noted. Further review is not needed. Comments:The manuscript is dealing with an interesting topic, the UPD of Ni on the Fe surface.Due to the revisions made the manuscript is better understandable now. However before publication the following points should be clarified: Experimental section  lease note the current which flows during the preparation of Ni and Fe electrodes. If both electrodes were prepared at -1.2V, what is then the current efficiency for both processes and the thickness of film produced? What is the absolute current efficiency? How was the QMB calibrated, means how was exact determined the Factor C?from what kind of calculation one knows the current efficiency of the process?[ Last edited by abrastein on 2010-5-14 at 11:59 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
调剂
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿 江南大学 085602 化工专硕 338分求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
材料专硕(0856) 339分求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
377求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
0703调剂，一志愿天津大学319分
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿南昌大学，085600，344分求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
308求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
找调剂
已经有9人回复
-
一志愿郑州大学085600求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
316求调剂
已经有3人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 大家帮忙看看，这种情况如何回复编辑及申诉
已经有15人回复
- 审稿人要求大修，却被编辑给拒了，是否可以申诉？
已经有15人回复
- 文章二审前被编辑因为文章英语问题而据了，可以申诉吗？
已经有13人回复
- 这种情况下可以申诉么？
已经有6人回复
- 《软件学报》能否申诉？
已经有8人回复
- 投稿Langmuir，审稿人都说可以发表，编辑拒稿，这种情况有必要申诉吗？
已经有10人回复
- 请问美国化学会志JACS能申诉吗？
已经有3人回复
- 请教organic letter 如何申诉？
已经有7人回复
- nature materials悲剧了，可以申诉吗？
已经有23人回复
- 评审意见很让人不服，是否可以申诉？
已经有56人回复
- 论文被拒，怎样申诉
已经有21人回复
- 投稿angew chemie被拒还能申诉么？
已经有14人回复
- 终审遭退，可否向编辑申诉，如申诉，该如何写申诉信好呢？
已经有12人回复
dm8465
至尊木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 10698.5
- 散金: 7
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 449
- 在线: 759.9小时
- 虫号: 255566
- 注册: 2006-05-28
- 专业: 电化学分析
2楼2010-05-13 21:54:42
379631818
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 金币: 9526.9
- 散金: 80
- 红花: 7
- 帖子: 1548
- 在线: 568.8小时
- 虫号: 555522
- 注册: 2008-05-09
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
3楼2010-05-13 22:48:00
4楼2010-05-13 23:27:15
wellyy2005
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
s
- SEPI: 5
- 应助: 911 (博后)
- 贵宾: 0.81
- 金币: 34048.3
- 散金: 7213
- 红花: 74
- 沙发: 32
- 帖子: 15755
- 在线: 1752.8小时
- 虫号: 498546
- 注册: 2008-02-04
- 专业: 肿瘤综合治疗
5楼2010-05-13 23:38:16
6楼2010-05-13 23:43:44
7楼2010-05-14 01:16:05
8楼2010-05-14 01:16:51
very2
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 17 (小学生)
- 金币: 7467.2
- 红花: 6
- 帖子: 871
- 在线: 431.6小时
- 虫号: 952088
- 注册: 2010-02-04
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理相关交叉领域
abrastein(金币+10): 2010-05-14 11:55:05
|
能否把前因后果介绍清楚，是已经重投一次后，被同一审稿人据稿，还是投到新的杂志又被同一审稿人据稿？ 再者，审稿人说的意见楼主认不认可？你想申诉是因为审稿人误读了你的论文还是觉得他故意针对你们？应该解释清楚。 按照第一个审稿人的意见，他承认你的论文有一定的研究价值，但对你的结论不满意，认为你的很多推断是错误的。希望你修改后再投，重新考虑。我认为这和大修差不多。最好仔细研究审稿人的意见，做相应的修改，引用其提供的论文，改后再投还是很有希望的。 祝好运~  [ Last edited by very2 on 2010-5-14 at 06:48 ] |
9楼2010-05-14 06:37:51
10楼2010-05-14 07:17:59
