| 查看: 2852 | 回复: 9 | ||||
[交流]
帮忙分析一下这个审稿意见如何？先谢谢各位 已有7人参与
|
|
大家帮忙看看 这个审稿意如何。尤其是第二个审稿人，他的潜意思是什么？ 因为没有提到关于大修还是小修的问题，所以比较迷茫，再次真诚的希望大牛们给予指导。 Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The paper is appropriate for a journal like IJTS. However, prior to publishing, some adjustments to the paper must be added. The paper is generally well written, overall information on ejectors seems appropriate but the paper lacks adequate details to fully describe the methodology and discussion presented in the paper. Accordingly, the authors should consider revising their paper, based on the following comments: Figure 11: specify the discharge pressure Figure 7: the symbol Pi should be added in the nomenclature English: please ensure that the document is checked for spelling mistakes P.6: the statement: 'Therefore only heat between motive and induced NG has been taken into consideration in the present simulation' should be more detailed in its meaning and clearly stated. Account of this heat exchange being implicit (through the energy equation). P.9: In the optimization approach described in this page, there are a number of information elements missing and/or leading to confusion: - was an initial size used? On what method was it based? - are the other 'independent' parameters fixed while Pp9-11: The entrainment ratio is indicated to be around 10% while it is stated elsewhere that (in the abstract and/or the introduction) to reach over 90%. Clarify to lift inconsistencies. P.11, eq. 3: use tan-1 symbol which is more common for the co-tangent. P.11, model validation: Validation in general understanding means that a comparison between numerical/experimental results under controlled conditions is made. It does not appear to be the case here because what is presented is a comparison between predictions from two models. This can be considered as an analysis example based on the developed model(s). The authors should therefore clarify this (link with $4 p.13, experimental verification which may be considered as a form of validation). P.13, The uncertainty on induced flow rate is high. Authors should evaluate the impact on model validation when using these results. Reviewer #3: The submitted manuscript presents the numerical and experimental analysis of an ejector for boosting gas removal from low pressure wells. The subject of the paper is interesting and relevant to the profile of International Journal of Thermal Sciences. However in the present form, it is not recommended for publication. Comments: Language: The English of the manuscript is relatively poor. It should be significantly improved before re-submission. Scientific issues: - On page 3, the authors claim that 1D models are useful "to understand the basic flow physics in the ejector". I do not agree with the statement since these models provide very little information on flow physics. They are more useful for evaluating the effect of the operating conditions on ejector performance or designing "baseline" ejector geometry. - On page 6, reference [15] is used to justify the turbulence model applied. I think correctly it should be another one: Bartosiewicz, Y., Aidoun, Z., Desevaux, P., Mercadier, Y., 2005. Numerical and experimental investigations on supersonic ejectors. Int. J. of Heat and Fluid Flow 26, 56-70. - On page 7-8, it is explained how the length of a component is related to the converging/diverging angles, etc. It is trivial; there is no need to discuss that. - Information is not given how the baseline model, used as a starting point for geometrical optimisation, was chosen. There were four design variables for the performance optimisation. Only one was varied at a time defining such its optimal value. This process could be argued to be the best one… - Section 3 is referred to as model validation, however model validation is carried out in section 4. Because of that it is confusing whether the results in section 3 come from simulations or experiments. All the figures related to this section include a "fitting curve", however it is not mentioned in the text how those curves were obtained. - On page 14 and under point 2 in Conclusions, the authors claim that the entrainment ratio showed an optimum value as a function of the primary inlet pressure for suction pressures below 4.5 MPa. It is not obvious from the data presented for 2MPa. Also there is no physical explanation why it should not be the case for suction pressures higher than 4.5 MPa. The author's statement is probably true only for the range of operating conditions (motive fluid pressure) considered! - Table 1 compares the present ejector design to previously published one. Very little difference can be observed. |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 Publication tips |
» 猜你喜欢
348求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
350求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
309分085801求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
生物学308分求调剂（一志愿华东师大）
已经有3人回复
-
求调剂：一志愿：南京大学 专业：0705 总分320 ，本科985，四六级已过
已经有3人回复
-
环境工程 085701，267求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
308求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
求调剂：085600材料与化工，考材科基，总分319
已经有21人回复
-
311求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
294分080500材料科学与工程求调剂
已经有13人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 大家帮我分析一下，这种情况对投稿影响大么
已经有5人回复
- 请帮忙看看这个审稿意见
已经有4人回复
- 请大家帮忙看下这个审稿意见怎么处理好
已经有22人回复
- by independent method是什么意思？
已经有5人回复
- 大牛帮忙分析一下专家意见，下次希望大不大？
已经有5人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看审稿人的意见，谢谢!
已经有6人回复
- 审稿意见分析与修改
已经有11人回复
- 编辑给的审稿意见，怎么解答啊~~谢谢亲们~~
已经有6人回复
- 请大家帮我分析下审稿意见
已经有18人回复
- 二审审稿意见怎么回复？谢谢大家，帮忙看看吧，给点意见
已经有3人回复
- Energy的审稿意见，望各位大侠指导
已经有22人回复
- 大家帮分析下审稿意见
已经有8人回复
- ECM审稿意见返回了，求各位帮忙解读一下，谢谢
已经有28人回复
- 大家请帮我看看这个审稿意见是什么意思？
已经有7人回复
- 请各位帮忙看看审稿意见
已经有8人回复
- 请各位SCI大牛看看该审稿意见如何回复
已经有3人回复
- 大家帮看一下这个审稿意见棘手不，谢谢了。
已经有22人回复
- International Journal of Thermal Sciences,4个审稿人，3个修改后接收，1个拒
已经有19人回复
- 文章第二次修改，有点迷茫
已经有17人回复
- 求高人帮忙分析下APL审稿意见
已经有7人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，大家帮忙分析一下，有些意见看不懂？
已经有14人回复
- 专家审稿意见，请大家帮忙分析！
已经有5人回复
- 帮忙看下审稿意见
已经有6人回复
- 大家帮我分析一下material and design的审稿意见，录用几率大不？
已经有24人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，大家帮忙看一下。。
已经有9人回复
- 【求助】大家帮我分析下审稿人给的评语 （关于纳米颗粒细胞内化）
已经有4人回复
whutxdh
专家顾问
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 10951.6
- 散金: 6
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 732
- 在线: 791.9小时
- 虫号: 954877
- 注册: 2010-02-11
- 专业: 无机非金属类光电信息与功
2楼2010-07-19 16:56:54
3楼2010-07-19 16:59:11
4楼2010-07-19 19:06:58
5楼2010-07-19 20:28:33
6楼2010-07-19 20:32:01
bighead8012
版主
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 805.6
- 散金: 102
- 帖子: 147
- 在线: 31.6小时
- 虫号: 531012
- 注册: 2008-03-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 理论和计算化学
7楼2010-07-19 20:41:29
sunke
兑换贵宾
- 应助: 172 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 0.417
- 金币: 15024.8
- 散金: 687
- 红花: 7
- 沙发: 8
- 帖子: 8688
- 在线: 535.1小时
- 虫号: 461515
- 注册: 2007-11-18
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机非金属类高温超导与磁
8楼2010-07-19 20:47:40
zhaoyuehong
专家顾问
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 769.1
- 散金: 15
- 帖子: 234
- 在线: 23.6小时
- 虫号: 1029633
- 注册: 2010-05-27
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 催化化学
9楼2010-07-19 20:57:17
10楼2010-07-19 21:09:16
