| 查看: 2536 | 回复: 28 | |||
| 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 | |||
ab0345金虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
SCI 文章被居, 有点生气 已有25人参与
|
||
|
我刚刚收到一篇SCI 文章的审稿意见,意见如下,连修改的机会都不给,被剧,不服 Your Technical Paper, listed above, has completed the peer-review process for possible publicationXXXXXXXXXXXX The editor's final decision was to decline the manuscript. You can view any reviewers' attachments by clicking on this link. This link will only work one time. Next time you will have to navigate to the attachments by viewing your manuscript submission: For your guidance, you will find below the reviewer's comments identifying those elements of the manuscript that prevent its acceptance by the Journal. We realize that it takes a great deal of time and effort to prepare a paper for submission and we thank you for choosingXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for submission of your work Sincerely, Pamela Lucas Philpott Editorial Coordinator Reviewers' comments: Both reviewers have some serious concerns about the paper and consider it to be below average. Reviewer #1: The English language in the paper is of very poor quality. Throughout the manuscript, it is very difficult to fully understand what the authors want to say. The authors should find some assistance in rewriting the paper in acceptable English. Nevertheless, I tried to understand the technical content. The topic of the paper is very interesting. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the authors do not realize that in their study, by changing the content of the coarse aggregate, they are also modifiying the paste content and paste properties. Looking at the grading curve of the fine aggregate, it can be noticed that 27.8 % is passing through the 0.15µm sieve. So, a substantial part of the fine aggregate is most probably smaller that 0.125µm, and thus can technically be considered as 'powder'. The modification of the paste properties and the paste content probably is much more relevant to the investigated material properties than the content of coarse aggregate. The authors should re-analyse their result taking this into account. Reviewer #2: This manuscript describes the results of the effect of coarse effect on properties of SCC. It may become publishable if the authors can revise it properly: (1) The materials were from China, and the research work was done in China, some experiments followed Chinese standards, how and why the cement was analyzed following Turkish Standard EN TS 196-2, and the slump flow was determined following GOST 1018100 (Soviet and Russian government standard)? (2) How could the aggregate have a porosity of 43%? How was it measured? (3) When SCC mixtures have slump greater than 750 mm, and contain so much coarse aggregate, the mixtures will bleed and segregate. (4) It is surprised that a such small variation in coarse aggregate content would result such significant effect on the properties of concrete if there was no bleeding and segregation. Or pls provide explanations how the coarse aggregate content affect the properties of concrete. (5) Pls use mass instead of weight. (6) The whole manuscript needs improvements |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
帮忙看看fileCode
已经有8人回复
-
小木虫上这么多卖论文的，真有人买论文么？感觉没必要啊
已经有3人回复
-
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有15人回复
-
filecode
已经有8人回复
-
确定了，国自然21号放榜
已经有7人回复
-
综述论文作为代表作会不会影响评审专家的印象分？
已经有11人回复
-
关于代码变化问题，想知道的进来
已经有24人回复
-
为什么网上很多人说本周 12号出结果
已经有3人回复
-
静等基金结果
已经有16人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有11人回复
steven_198377
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 68 (初中生)
- 金币: 734.6
- 散金: 4
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 643
- 在线: 186.8小时
- 虫号: 311922
- 注册: 2006-12-30
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
29楼2010-07-04 20:34:27
visitor958
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
IEEE杂志与会议专家
- 应助: 2283 (讲师)
- 贵宾: 0.05
- 金币: 17310.5
- 散金: 2544
- 红花: 76
- 帖子: 15735
- 在线: 2926.6小时
- 虫号: 489254
- 注册: 2008-01-01
- 专业: IEEE
2楼2010-07-01 20:44:15
JluChem
铁杆木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 26075.2
- 散金: 407
- 沙发: 11
- 帖子: 3567
- 在线: 290.2小时
- 虫号: 420594
- 注册: 2007-07-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: Physical Chemistry
3楼2010-07-01 20:55:32
4楼2010-07-01 21:00:27
100