24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 3116  |  回复: 34
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

striveme

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 谁见过这样的审稿意见?已有26人参与

最近的一篇投稿,得到的审稿意见如下,编辑让major reversion,各位大神给点建议.怎么个搞法?
Dear Prof. XXX:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in The XXX. It has been examined by expert reviewers who have concluded that the work is of potential interest to the readership of The XXX; however, it appears that a major revision, possibly followed by further reviewer evaluation, will be needed prior to its further consideration for publication. Please see the enclosed reviewers' reports for details regarding the requested changes and/or additions.
------------------------------------
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: This paper is not recommended because it does not provide new physical insights.
Comments:
The authors studied XXX. The group has used this method to study polymer chains in solutions. Now they switched to small surfactant molecules. Such a system has been well studied in colloidal research. The method is a commercial instrument. I do not see that a combination of this system and this method has led us anything new. Yes, they did lots of measurement and summarize their results into some figures. That’s it! This is a simple laboratory report, not a scientific paper. Where are sciences? My guess is that these two authors just try to publish one more paper.
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: This paper represents a significant new contribution and should be published as is.
Comments:
This is a timely report that contains high-quality experimental data and appropriate interpretation. There are very few papers dealing with the kinetics  transitions and this is an excellent contribution to the field of self-assembly. I recommend publication in XXX without any changes.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

striveme

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

老板也算小牛了,写作不至于很差,以前审稿基本上都是well written
估计遇到仇人了。。。。。。。。。
第二个估计是朋友,搞的太裸了
8楼2010-09-11 10:47:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 35 个回答

bachier

金虫 (职业作家)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
非常汗呵呵,两个审稿人意见差别这么大
3楼2010-09-11 10:28:30
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

duxin_30

铜虫 (正式写手)

你的论文是不是太像实验报告了?缺少分析?或者说是不是在堆数据而不是讨论科学问题?是的话就改,不是的话就想想怎么反驳吧。第二个审稿人给的评价很高,我觉得要么是第一个审稿人乱评,要么就是第二个审稿人是认识你们的人

[ Last edited by duxin_30 on 2010-9-11 at 10:34 ]
4楼2010-09-11 10:32:19
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

polestar007

至尊木虫 (职业作家)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
引用回帖:
Originally posted by duxin_30 at 2010-09-11 10:32:19:
你的论文是不是太像实验报告了?缺少分析?或者说是不是在堆数据而不是讨论科学问题?是的话就改,不是的话就想想怎么反驳吧。第二个审稿人给的评价很高,我觉得要么是第一个审稿人乱评,要么就是第二个审稿人是认 ...

两个应该都是中国人,第二个显然是熟人,并且是极其不负责任的,给个小修也行啊,竟然是不做任何修改

相比较来说,应该第一个说的比较符合实际情况(虽然没看到楼主的文章,呵呵)

[ Last edited by polestar007 on 2010-9-11 at 10:39 ]
匏土革,木石金。丝与竹,乃八音。
5楼2010-09-11 10:37:47
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见