| 查看: 2560 | 回复: 6 | |||
| 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 | |||
luolei1222铜虫 (初入文坛)
|
[交流]
求助，第一次投稿，审稿人的意见，是退稿的意思，还是有修改价值的意思呀 已有6人参与
|
||
|
求助，第一次投稿，审稿人的意见，是退稿的意思，还是有修改价值的意思呀，我投的是liquid crystals 杂志 审稿人意见: Referee(s)' Comments to Author:Referee: 1Comments to the AuthorI am totally confused by this paper. The authors seem to rub a bare ITO surface, and then claim that rubbing produced homeotropic alignment. This is counterintuitive, since rubbing normally produces planar alignment. They then go on to talk about VA (vertical alignment), but yet their experimental geometry is for a planar-aligned cell. Other specific problems: 1. The cholestreric LC has dissolved CTAB. This certainly will affect the anchoring. How much CTAB is in the mixture? Is it controlled? 2. What is the pitch of the CLC? How does it vary with temperature? 3. CLCs normally give fingerprint or Grandjean textures, not focal conics. Please explain. Also, how does the pitch and orientation vary with electric field? 4. Each variable in equation 1 (and following) needs to be defined in the text. 5. I have no idea what the middle paragraph on page 6 is saying. The authors write "Various cells were measured, the results were almost the same. Anchoring energy ofthe rubbed cells is large than that of the non-rubbed ones." The second sentence seems to be inconsistent with the first. 6. The decrease of anchoring strength with an increase in temperature is a result known for nearly 30 years. The authors need to include references. The manuscript is very, very confusing, and it's not clear to me that the experiments were conducted with the required care to draw any significant conclusions. This paper will need a near total rewrite before it can be considered for publication. I also suggest that the authors find a colleague who is more fluent in English to help with the writing; perhaps some of my confusion stems from the less-than-adequate use of English. 现在求助大家，真不知道这篇论文还有没有修改价值了 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有17人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有4人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有5人回复
-
我不理解！
已经有23人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有10人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有10人回复
-
怎么查啊
已经有5人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有10人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有25人回复
-
2026年8月25日国自然放榜前突然收到列入评审专家邮件，有关系吗？
已经有28人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 审稿意见刚回来，审稿人的编号是指什么，求助
已经有11人回复
- 第一篇投稿被拒，帮我看看审稿人的意见，是否可以采纳，修改重投
已经有15人回复
- 修改意见下来了，是小修 但我不太明白审稿人的意思
已经有7人回复
- 大家帮我看看审稿人的真正意思
已经有10人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看这个审稿意见（不太明白审稿人有没有提出修改意见）
已经有7人回复
- 求助,审稿人意见里有段说因子分析的,不知何意
已经有3人回复
- 【求助】帮我看看审稿人的意见是否又接受的希望
已经有22人回复
- 加个新问题 ACS applied materials & interfaces 达审稿人意见求助
已经有13人回复
- 深夜求助，审稿人修改意见都是内容上的讨论，response还用不用具体标注修改的小句子？
已经有6人回复
- 请问：修改稿如果不按照审稿人的意见修改，会被拒掉么
已经有14人回复
- 【求助】有关审稿人提出的修改意见——请教应该怎么理解他的意思
已经有13人回复
 |
7楼2012-02-19 10:02:57
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: 17310.5
- 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2010-11-19 09:48:00
3楼2010-11-19 11:23:14
lwiaanngg
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 46 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 0.773
- 金币: 7403.2
- 散金: 24
- 红花: 12
- 帖子: 1211
- 在线: 110.3小时
- 虫号: 43541
- 注册: 2004-04-10
- 专业: 应用高分子化学与物理
4楼2010-11-19 11:28:53
