| 查看: 2306 | 回复: 8 | |||
| 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 | |||
catsupport木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
修改后再投可以吗？ 已有7人参与
|
||
|
这样的审稿意见老板要求我根据审稿人的意见修改了再尝试投一次，有经验的虫友们支招一下，成功的几率如何？现将编辑的回信附上： Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in The Journal of Physical Chemistry. It has been examined by expert reviewers whose reviews are enclosed. After careful consideration of their comments (and my own evaluation of the manuscript), I am unable to accept the manuscript for publication in The Journal of Physical Chemistry. While your work appears to have been carried out with care, unfortunately, we are unable to accept all of the sound work submitted to the journal. We appreciate your choice of The Journal of Physical Chemistry as a possible forum for presentation of your work. With sincere regards, Prof. Catherine Murphy Senior Editor The Journal of Physical Chemistry Phone: 803-777-4332 Fax: 202-513-8768 Editor Email: jphyschem@chem.sc.edu Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: This paper is not recommended because it does not provide new physical insights. Comments: This work mainly contains two sections: xx synthesis and characterization, and the investigation on the catalytic activity of as-prepared xx toward the degradation of xx in aqueous solution in the presence of H2O2. The first part of the work was studied systematically and the related resulted was characterized by a range of techniques, however, as far as the method is concerned, the novelty is limited. The investigation on the catalytic activity of xx toward the degradation of xx is interesting, however, the evidence for chemical oxidation degradation of Xx by H2O2 in the presence of xx is not convincing. The morphology of xx can not change substantially after absorbing XO, furthermore, the sulfur element can also not be detected by EDS as S on the surface is limited. The statement “which indicating no Xx molecule on the surface of the xx” is not accurate due to the fact that xx have high absorption ability, if IR measurement was performed, the characteristic peaks of XO could be observed. Based on above reasons, I do not recommend this Ms published in The Journal of Physical Chemistry. Some other comments are demonstrated as follows: 1.Page 21 line 32, “Figure 2. (A), (B), (c), (D);” should be “Figure 2. (a), (b), (c) and (d)”, authors should use them unitedly in the whole Ms. 2.Page 11, line 24, “It is well know” should be “It is well known” 3.I don’t agree with the authors’ statement that the xx. 4.Page 14, line 22, “SEM and EDS were used to obverse the surface” should be “SEM and EDS were used to observe the surface” Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: This paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted. Comments: The authors report that xx are synthesized and their catalytic degradation properties are also desirable. These results are interesting in the paper, but the following points should be considered by the authors. 1. Considering main feature of the produced structure is “xx” and it affects the xx properties and catalytic effects of sample, a test to measure the specific area of samples may be necessary, and the distribution of the pore size is also interesting. 2. Page 8, Lines 14-17. “…the 3. Page 14, Lines 42-50. There are not experimental data support the The final sentence in the Conclusions. Thus I suggest the authors delete it. 4. Page 4, “However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are few reports on the synthesis of xx.” The authors should delete it because the xx have been synthesized by a different method from the author’s. In addition, “NaAc” in the Abstract may be replaced with “sodium acetate”; Ref. 58 is not correct. 有虫友们遇到过类似上述意见的审稿判决吗？这是本人第一篇文章，从选题，思路和实验方案的确立，实验实施，数据处理和分析以及初稿写作到论文定稿都是自己一手操办，老板只是最终指示投稿！！结果被拒了真的特别难受！！ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
转长聘了
已经有7人回复
-
085400电子信息类（川大控制工程）求调剂可跨专业 求老师联系
已经有4人回复
-
求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
药学求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有24人回复
-
284求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
考研调剂
已经有14人回复
-
RY：中国产出的科学垃圾论文，绝对数量和比例都世界第一
已经有17人回复
-
085404 22408 309分求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
求调剂
已经有16人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 这篇稿子还有戏吗，是修改后再投，还是换个刊物？
已经有20人回复
- 被拒的文章修改后是不是最好不要再投同一期刊？
已经有7人回复
- 论文被退稿，但编辑邮件说 建议作者认真修改后再投
已经有9人回复
- JMPT投稿被拒，可以好好修改后再投这个吗？？
已经有5人回复
- 被一个杂志拒了，修改后还可以再投吗？
已经有8人回复
- 已经被拒了，这样的审稿意见还能修改后再投同一个期刊吗？
已经有58人回复
- 一个月前收到这样的拒稿意见,修改后想再投该杂志,合适吗?
已经有16人回复
- 请问大家，投稿被拒后，能不能修改后再重新投！
已经有10人回复
- 投稿到Elsevier杂志未过技术审查，修改后再投还有可能送审吗？
已经有14人回复
- 悲剧的稿子认真修改后再投这个杂志可以不？
已经有16人回复
- 投稿到Elsevier杂志未过技术审查，修改后再投还有戏吗？
已经有15人回复
- 【请教】投稿acta e 后被拒，修改后再投稿...
已经有11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
★ ★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
xj850626(金币+1):鼓励交流 2010-11-06 14:14:42
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
xj850626(金币+1):鼓励交流 2010-11-06 14:14:42
|
这个杂志，包括主编，对你这个很不感兴趣，换个杂志吧，除非你真的增加很多新内容，等于写一篇新文章。 "as far as the method is concerned, the novelty is limited. The investigation on the catalytic activity of xx toward the degradation of xx is interesting, however, the evidence for chemical oxidation degradation of Xx by H2O2 in the presence of xx is not convincing. The morphology of xx can not change substantially after absorbing XO, furthermore, the sulfur element can also not be detected by EDS as S on the surface is limited. The statement “which indicating no Xx molecule on the surface of the xx” is not accurate due to the fact that xx have high absorption ability, if IR measurement was performed, the characteristic peaks of XO could be observed. " |
3楼2010-11-06 11:01:45
polestar007
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.42
- 金币: 17388.8
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 3952
- 在线: 1099.4小时
- 虫号: 439293
- 注册: 2007-10-10
- 专业: 胶体与界面化学
2楼2010-11-06 10:48:17
6楼2011-07-01 18:27:47
painforn
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 7232.4
- 散金: 55
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 605
- 在线: 320小时
- 虫号: 493298
- 注册: 2008-01-10
- 专业: 无机非金属类电介质与电解
7楼2011-07-01 19:05:53
10