24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

siyu2009-h

铜虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 63.9
散金: 2
帖子: 24
在线: 13小时
虫号: 1143102
注册: 2010-11-10
专业: 光学信息获取与处理

[交流] 第一次投SCI，修改一次后被拒，该怎么办？急切！谢谢！已有47人参与

大家好！我是新人，真挚的谢谢每位回复的虫友。
我第一次投SCI,投的是APPL ＯＰＴＩＣＳ，以下是主编的回复，请问我应该改投还是认真修改之后还投这个杂志。再一次谢谢给我建议的虫友！
Dear Ms. －－－:

Your revised manuscript does not suitably address the reviewers’ concerns, therefore I cannot accept your manuscript in its present form for publication in Applied Optics.

If you wish to revise your manuscript to meet the reviewers’ objections (given below), you may choose to resubmit it to APPLIED OPTICS. The manuscript will, however, be regarded as a new manuscript and be given a new submission date.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to APPLIED OPTICS. We hope that we will be able to serve you in the future.

Sincerely

----------------------------
Reviewer comments provided here:

Reviewer 1

Reviewer 2
Unfortunately, I feel that the authors have neither adequately addressed all of my own comments for mandatory amendments, or those of the other three reviewers. The paper itself is worthy of publication, but not in this form. It still requires a considerable amount of work to increase basic clarity. The problems of clarity of basic explanation are undoubtedly compounded by a poor quality of written English and language use throughout. Although the authors say in their response that they have tried to improve the English language, in reality the quality of the amended manuscript is little different to the original, and in some cases it is worse. Also, in the document supplied by the authors in response to the reviewer’s comments, several points have been addressed only within this document, i.e. directly to the reviewers, rather than having been addressed in the paper by amending the manuscript itself. Therefore, I conclude that without a further round of amendments, which is not allowed under the AO refereeing guidelines, the quality of the paper is not sufficiently high to merit publication in AO and I must therefore recommend rejection of the paper. Should the authors wish to re-submit afresh, I would recommend getting somebody else to look at the written language and to improve clarity. The technical material is worthy of publication, but the paper must be improved.
----------------------------

回复此楼