[½»Á÷] ¡¾Ô­´´¡¿¡¶Journal of Hydrology¡·ÔÙ´Îʧ°Ü... ÒÑÓÐ30È˲ÎÓë

×î½ü¿´Óгæ³æ°ÑÒ»ÄêÇ°µÄÌù×Ó¡°µØѧ¿ÚµÄÅóÓÑ£¬ÓÐͶ¹ý¡¶Journal of Hydrology¡·µÄô¡±ÓÖÐøÉÏÌÖÂÛÁË £¨http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1485435&fpage=0&view=&highlight=&page=1£©£¬ÆäʵÎÒ±¾²»´òËãÔÙ¸üÐÂÁË£¬µ«È·ÊµÓÖÏëÔÙÁôÏÂЩʲô£¬ÎÞÄÎÔ­ÌùÖ÷ÎÄÒÑÎÞ·¨½øÐб༭£¬ËùÒÔÁí¿ªÒ»Æª£¬ËãÊÇÎÒÕâƪ¸å¼þ³å»÷JHµÄÒ»¸ö¹ý³Ì˵Ã÷°É£¬Ï£ÍûÄܶԵØѧ¿Ú»òÊÇÏëͶJHÆÚ¿¯µÄ³æ³æÓÐËù°ïÖú£¡ Ëä²»ÊÇѧˮÎÄѧ³öÉí£¬µ«´¹ÏÑ Journal of HydrologyÆÚ¿¯ÓÉÀ´ÒѾᣵçÄÔÀïEndnoteÖÐÒ²ÊÇJHµÄÆÚ¿¯ÎÄÏ××î¶à£¨ÒòΪƽʱ¶ÁµÄ×î¶à£©¡£ÕâÒѾ­ÊÇÎÒµÚ¶þƪ¸å¼þ³å»÷JHÁË£¬¿Éϧ»¹ÊÇʧ°Ü£¬Ö®Ç°ÆªÍ¶JH±»¾ÜµÄ¸å¼þ¸ÄͶIF=1¡£3µÄÆÚ¿¯£¬Ä¿Ç°ÕýСÐÞÖС£ ÑÔ¹éÕý´«°É [2009-07-02] ¸å¼þÐÂͶ¸å [2009-07-03] ¸å×Ó·ÖÅäÁËManuscript No£¬×´Ì¬±äΪEditor Assigned [2009-07-06] ¸å×Ó״̬»¹ÊÇEditor Assigned£¬µ«Ê±¼ä¸üÐÂÁËһϠ[2009-07-24] ¸å×Ó״̬»¹ÊÇEditor Assigned£¬µ«Ê±¼äÔٴθüР[2009-08-12] ÎÒÓеãµÈ²»¼°ÁË£¬¸øeditor·¢ÁË·âµçÓÊÈ¥´ßÁË´ß [2009-09-01] ¸å×Ó×´³Ï±äΪ"reviewer invited" [2009-09-03] ¸å×Ó״̬±äΪ"under review" [2009-11-03] ¸å×Ó״̬²»±ä£¬»¹ÊÇ¡°under review¡±£¬µ«Ê±¼ä¸üÐÂÁË£¡ [2009-12-02] ¸å×Ó״̬±äΪ"with editor" [2009-12-03] ¸å×Ó״̬±äΪ"Decision in Process" [2009-12-08] Reject£¬Í¬Ê±ÊÕµ½comments£¡ ***************************************************************************** Dear ***, I very much regret to have to tell you that publication in our journal is not recommended. An explanation for this decision is given in the attached review reports (and on http://ees.elsevier.com/hydrol/). I hope that the comments contained therein will be of use to you. Thank you for your interest in our journal. With kind regards, Andreas Bardossy Editor Journal of Hydrology -------------------------------------------- Reviewer #1: Comments on paper by ***. submitted to Journal of Hydrology This paper addressed **** by analyzing ****. Generally, it is a kind of conventional research. Actually, overwhelmingly abundant studies are available concerning ****. Any more similar studies will not further help to understand ****. Besides, to my best knowledge, there are some studies addressing *****. Repeated studies of similar topics are not attractive and impressive. There are other similar studies and I can not list them all here. The authors should thoroughly review and discuss the previous studies, addressing the novelty of the current study when compared to the previous ones. I think the publication of the study in the Journal of Hydrology requires novelty of the study or the knowledge contribution of the study to the hydrology. However, the current study can not satisfy these requirements. Therefore, I recommend rejection of this paper. ²»ËÀÐÄ£¬ÔÚÔ­¸åµÄ»ù´¡ÉÏ£¬½øÐÐÁË´ó·ùÐ޸ģ¨Æäʵ»ù±¾Ï൱ÓÚÖØдÁË£¬¼à²âÊý¾ÝÔö¼ÓËı¶¡­£©£¬ÖØͶ£¬ÖØдÍêºó×Ô¼º¾­¸Ð¾õÏ൱Á¼ºÃ£¬ÓÉÓÚÊÇÔÚÔ­¸å»ù´¡ÉϽøÐеÄÐ޸ģ¬ÎÒÉõÖÁÔÚcover letterÖкÍeditor˵¡°we also prefer to suggest the same reviewers (reviewers for No.ÎÒ±»¾ÜµÄÄÇƪ¸åºÅ), we are confident that they will be satisfied for the new manuscript.¡±¡£µ±Ê±£¬¸Ð¾õÕæµÄÊÇÌ«Á¼ºÃÁË£¨×Ô´óµÄ¾õµÄ£ºÕâ¸å×ÓÔõô¿ÉÄÜ»á¾Ü£¿£©£¬ÓÚÊÇ£¬¿ªÊ¼ÁËÐÂÒ»ÂÖÁ÷³Ì [2010-01-21]  Submitted to Journal [2010-01-26]  Editor Assigned [2010-02-03]  Reviewers invited [2010-02-12]  Under Review [2010-03-29]  Reviewers invited [2010-03-30]  Under Review [2010-05-28]  With Editor [2010-06-01]  Decision in Process [2010-06-07]  Reject£¬Í¬Ê±ÊÕµ½comments£¡ ***************************************************************************** Dear ***, I very much regret to have to tell you that publication in our journal is not recommended. An explanation for this decision is given in the attached review reports (and on http://ees.elsevier.com/hydrol/). I hope that the comments contained therein will be of use to you. Thank you for your interest in our journal. With kind regards, Andras Bardossy Editor Journal of Hydrology .......................................................... Reviewer #1: Gnearnal comment: A good paper should be the one: 1) being devoted to address an important scientific problem; 2) developing a novel method; or 3) focusing improvement of an existing method. It is also acceptable to answer a problem by using existing methods. However, I can not find the strong motivations that can justify the current study after finish reading the "Introduction" section. Besides, the objectives of this study are not impressive or attractive yet. Based on the literature review by the authors, the current study is more like a repeated research when taking into the published literatures. What are the novel points of this study when compared to the published literatures? What are the differences between the current study and the published ones? In summary, I can not find any merits of publication of this paper in Journal of Hydrology. Straightforward rejection is what I recommend strongly. Detailed commentsÂÔ) Reviewer #2: Gnearnal comment: This paper is a good paper. It supplements statistical analysis with physical evidence to investigate ******. One weakness of numerous previous studies is the dependence on statistical methods alone in analyzing ****, often **** without investigating other possible factors. This paper follows a balanced approach that investigates the effects *********** to conclude a rough contribution of each cause. I think this paper can be informative to the audience of the Journal of Hydrology, and thus recommend its acceptance. I urge the authors to carefully review the language of the paper (some suggestions are given below). Detailed commentsÂÔ) ***************************************************************************** Æäʵ¿´µ½Reviewer #1µÄcomments£¬ÐÄÖкÜÊDz»·þµÄ£¨°Ù·Ö°ÙµÄ¹úÄÚÉó¸åÈË£©£¬Ïë×ÅÉêËߵģ¬ºóÀ´¿´¿´ÂÛ̳ÖÐÆäËû³æ³æ¹ØÓÚÉêËßµÄÌù×Ó£¬¾ö¶¨²»ÔÚÕâÀË·Ñʱ¼äÁË£¬Ö±½Ó¸ÄͶÁË£¡ С½á£ºJH×÷ΪˮÎĽçTOP¼¶¿¯ÎÃż÷»¹ÊDZȽϸߡ£µ«ÕûÀí¶øÑÔ£¬Éó¸åЧÂÊËãÊǺܿìÁË£¡ ¸Ð¿®£ºJH£¬ÎÒµÄÃΣ¬ÎÒ»¹»áÔÙŬÁ¦µÄ£¡ [ Last edited by museum on 2010-7-27 at 13:14 ]

»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥