[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 sectionlease 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