| 查看: 2349 | 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
298求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
生物学308分求调剂（一志愿华东师大）做过分子实验
已经有7人回复
-
288求调剂，一志愿华南理工大学071005
已经有11人回复
-
一志愿深大085601材料工程专业（专硕）300分可以调剂去哪
已经有13人回复
-
一志愿郑州大学085600求调剂
已经有24人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
材料考研求调剂总分280
已经有28人回复
-
308求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
材料专硕调剂
已经有13人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 近年来个人发表SCI文章的感受
已经有46人回复
- 【我与化学实验的故事】有奖征文活动(截止时间1月15日)
已经有33人回复
- 师母要求要个通讯作者，一直弄不明白，在高校，通讯作者到底有什么好处啊？
已经有77人回复
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
- 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
7楼2010-07-01 21:18:42
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
- 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: 24884.2
- 散金: 407
- 沙发: 11
- 帖子: 3446
- 在线: 290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
