| ²é¿´: 2432 | »Ø¸´: 7 | ||||
[½»Á÷]
Çë½Ìorganic letter ÈçºÎÉêËߣ¿
|
|
Çë½Ì¸÷λ¸ßÊÖ, ¸å¼þ±»¾Ü£¬µ«ÊǾõµÃ¾ÜµÄ²»ºÏÀí£¬ÈçºÎ½øÐÐorganic letter ÉêËߣ¿ÔÚʲôÌõ¼þÏ¿ÉÒÔÉêËߣ¿ÉêËßÓ¦¸Ã×¢ÒâÄÇЩÎÊÌ⣿ [ Last edited by СƤº©ÄÝ8692 on 2011-1-16 at 15:50 ] |
» ÊÕ¼±¾ÌûµÄÌÔÌûר¼ÍƼö
ÌÔÌû |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
286·ÖÈ˹¤ÖÇÄÜרҵÇëÇóµ÷¼ÁÔ¸Òâ¿ç¿¼£¡
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
×ÊÔ´Óë»·¾³ µ÷¼ÁÉêÇë(333·Ö)
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
280Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
269ר˶Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼ÁԺУÐÅÏ¢
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏѧ˶301·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
³õÊÔ 317
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸211£¬0703»¯Ñ§310·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
¹ãÎ÷´óѧ²ÄÁϵ¼Ê¦ÍƼö
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
»¯Ñ§µ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍÆ¼ö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
Çë½Ì´óÏÀÃÇ£ºcover letterÀïÃæÄܲ»ÄÜÓÐnew novel ÕâÑùµÄ×ÖÑÛ£¿
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
ÇëÎÊͶOrganic Letter ÄѶȴ󲻴ó£¿
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
catalysis letter ¾Ü¸åºóÄÜÉêËßô£¿
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
Çë½Ìcommunication£¬letterµÄÇø±ð
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
µÚÒ»´ÎͶ¸åSCIÊÕµ½µÄDecision Letter£¬ÁíÇë½ÌÎÊÌâÒ»¸ö
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
¡¾ÆäËû¡¿Çë½ÌÈçºÎÇëÀÏʦ·¢recommend letter
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
¡¶Organic Letter¡·Í¶¸å¹ý³Ì by liangdawei
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
paper¸ø±à¼reject£¬Çë½ÌÉêËß
ÒѾÓÐ27È˻ظ´
Çë½ÌView LetterÎÊÌâ
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
ÈçºÎÔö¼ÓAppealµÄ³É¹¦ÂÊ£¡--ÎÄÕ±»¾ÜÉêË߳ɹ¦µÄ¼û½â
ÒѾÓÐ59È˻ظ´
» ÇÀ½ð±ÒÀ²£¡»ØÌû¾Í¿ÉÒԵõ½:
±¾×ÓÖÕÓÚÌá½»ÁË¡£²»ÓÃÔÙ¿´ÁË£¬Ò»ÇÐÏÐÏÂÀ´ÂýÂýµÈ¡£Ï£ÍûÒ»ÇÐ˳Àû£¡
+1/639
ÎÂÈáÉÆÁ¼£¬01ÄêÖØÇìÈËÅ®º¢£¬ÕÒ¸öÄÐÓÑ¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£
+2/432
ÄϾ©Ò½¿Æ´óѧÉúֳҽѧÓë×Ó´ú½¡¿µ¹úÖØÊµÑéÊÒ-¶·Éºê¿ÎÌâ×é-ѧÊõ˶ʿÕÐÉú
+1/93
»¯Ñ§»¯¹¤Ñ§Ôº ÕÐÊÕ»¯¹¤¡¢»¯Ñ§¡¢²ÄÁϵÈÏà¹Ø·½ÏòÑо¿Éú£¨Ñ§Ë¶¡¢×¨Ë¶¶¼Óе÷¼ÁÃû¶î£©
+1/83
˫һÁ÷ÄϾ©Ò½¿Æ´óѧÕмÆËã»ú¡¢AI¡¢Í³¼Æ¡¢ÉúÎïÐÅÏ¢µÈ·½Ïò26Äê9ÔÂÈëѧ²©Ê¿
+1/81
ÎÂÖÝ´óѧÂÀ¾§¾§¿ÎÌâ×é2026ÄêÕÐÉú
+1/76
Alicat ²ãÁ÷ѹ²îÖÊÁ¿Á÷Á¿¿ØÖÆÆ÷ÔÚÐÂÐ͹è̼¸º¼«Á÷»¯´²µÄÓ¦ÓÃ- °¬Àï¿¨ÌØ£¨Alicat£©
+3/64
Î÷±±´óѧ»¯Ñ§Óë²ÄÁÏ¿ÆÑ§Ñ§Ôº²©Ê¿ÕÐÉú£¨»¹ÓÐÁ½¸öÃû¶î£¬3ÔÂ30ÈÕ½ØÖÁ£©
+1/63
ÖÐÄÏ´óѧÓ÷¹ðÅó½ÌÊÚÍŶÓÐÂÔö2026Ä격ʿÑо¿Éú
+1/29
ÖпÆÔºÎïÀíËù¶þά²ÄÁÏ·½ÏòÕÐÊÕÍÆÃâÑо¿Éú
+1/26
ͬ¼Ã´óѧ»·¾³Ñ§Ôº Ð¤Ù»ÌØÆ¸Ñо¿Ô±¿ÎÌâ×é ÕÐÆ¸Ë¶Ê¿/²©Ê¿£¨³¤ÆÚÓÐЧ£©
+1/23
ÖÐɽ´óѧԺʿÍŶÓ΢ÄÉÆ÷¼þ¡¢ÄÔ»ú½Ó¿Ú·½Ïò²©Ê¿ÕÐÉú¡¢²©ºóÕÐÆ¸
+1/18
Õã½ÖÐÒ½Ò©´óѧ¸±Ð£³¤ÍŶÓÕÐÆ¸Ò©Ñ§/ÉúÎïÐÅϢѧµÈ·½Ïò¸ßУ½Ìʦ7Ãû£¬±¨ÃûͨµÀÒÑ¿ªÆô
+1/15
ÄÚÃɹſƼ¼´óѧÌúµçÐÂÄÜÔ´²ÄÁÏÓëÆ÷¼þÍŶӼò½é
+1/8
¡¾²©Ê¿ÕÐÉú¡¿Î人¿Æ¼¼´óѧÕÐÊÕ²ÄÁÏ¡¢»¯¹¤¡¢»·¾³¡¢Ò±½ðÀà2026Äê¡°ÉêÇë-¿¼ºË¡±ÖƲ©Ê¿Éú
+1/7
Äþ²¨¶«·½Àí¹¤´óѧÓàÅô¿ÎÌâ×é2026ÄêÉϺ£½»´óÁªÅ಩ʿÉú¡¢²©Ê¿ºó¡¢¿ÆÑÐÖúÀíÕÐÆ¸
+1/7
Ïã¸ÛÖÐÎÄ´óѧ»¯Ñ§ÏµÎâ»ùÅà½ÌÊÚÕÐļ2026ÄêÇï¼¾£¨2026Äê8ÔÂ1ÈÕ£©Èëѧȫ½±²©Ê¿Ñо¿Éú
+1/7
ºþ±±´óѧ²ÄÁÏѧÕÐ26¼¶Ë¶Ê¿Ñо¿ÉúÈô¸ÉÃû
+1/6
MDPIÏÂIJMSͶ¸å pending editor decision 9Ìì
+1/5
26É격×Ô¼ö
+1/4
croninszl
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- SEPI: 1
- Ó¦Öú: 22 (СѧÉú)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.001
- ½ð±Ò: 6191.8
- Ìû×Ó: 4446
- ÔÚÏß: 543.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 131510
СƤº©ÄÝ8692(½ð±Ò+5): ¶àл! 2011-01-16 19:16:41
|
ÄãÔÚÍøÉÏà²à²£¬Òò¸ÃºÜ¶àµÄ¡£Ð¡Ä¾³æÓ¦¸ÃÒ²ÓС£ Ö±½ÓдПøÄǸö¸ºÔðÄã¸å¼þµÄÖ÷±à£¬Ìá³öºÏÊʵÄÀíÓÉ¡£ 1¡£Ê×ÏȸÐлÖ÷±àºÍÉó¸åÈ˵ĺõÄÒâ¼ûºÍ½¨Ò飬ÒÔ¼°ÐÁ¿à¹¤×÷¡£ 2¡£µ«ÎÒÃǶÔij¸öÉó¸åÈËÌá³öµÄxx¾õµÃºÜxx,Éó¸åÒâ¼ûºÜ²»ºÏÀí¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£ 3¡£Ìá³öËûÃÇÉó¸åÒâ¼ûµÄ²»µ±Ö¸³ö¡£ÏêϸÁоÙÀíÓÉ£¬Ö¤¾Ý×îÖØÒª¡£ 4¡£Ï£Íû¸ÃÖ÷±àÄÜÔÚ¿¼ÂÇ»òÕßÖØÐÂÉóһϸøå¼þ¡£ ̬¶ÈÒªºÃ£¡£¡£¡£¡ ×Ô¼º²é²é°É¡£ ºÃÔË£¡ |
2Â¥2011-01-16 18:25:37
3Â¥2011-01-16 19:16:28
СƤº©ÄÝ8692(½ð±Ò+5): 2011-04-15 10:26:45
| ÉêÊöÊǺÜÓлú»áµÄ£¬ºÜ¶àÈ˶¼ÓйýÉêËß×îÖÕÎÄÕ±»½ÓÊܵľÀú£¬Ö÷ÒªÊÇ·´²µÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£¬Ëµ³ö×Ô¼ºµÄÀíÓÉ£¬µ«ÊÇÓïÆøÒ»¶¨ÒªÎ¯Íñ£¬Èç¹ûÖ÷±à¾õµÃÄã˵µÄÔÚÀí£¬Ò»°ã»áÔÙÈÃÆäËûÉó¸åÈËÔÙÉó£¬×£ÄãºÃÔË£¡ |
4Â¥2011-01-16 19:39:52
croninszl
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- SEPI: 1
- Ó¦Öú: 22 (СѧÉú)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.001
- ½ð±Ò: 6191.8
- Ìû×Ó: 4446
- ÔÚÏß: 543.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 131510
СƤº©ÄÝ8692(½ð±Ò+5): 2011-01-16 21:53:20
|
[quote]Originally posted by СƤº©ÄÝ8692 at 2011-01-16 12:16:28: Ïë¸úÄúÎÊÏÂÄúÓÐûÓйýÉêËß¾Àú£¿ÎÒÊÇÐÂÊÖ£¬²»ÊǺܶ®¡£Òª²»ÒªÒ»Ò»µÄ»Ø¸´Éó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£¿Ô¸å¼þÖÐÒª²»ÒªÐ޸쬱ÈÈç˵Ҫ¼ÓÈëµÄÊý¾Ý£¬»òÕßÊÇÓï·¨»ò¸ñʽµÄÐÞ¸ÄÕâÑùµÄ£¿¶àл£¡Èç¹û·½±ãµÄ»°£¬Äܲ»ÄܸøÎÒ·¢·ÝÉêËßÐÅ?Ê®·Ö ... [/q ÎÒûÓÐÉêÊö¹ý£¡ ¸øÄãһЩģ°å°É£¬½÷É÷ʹÓ㺠Dear Editor Thank you and the reviewers very much for your helpful and kindly comments on our manuscript titled "¡" . However, we think that your decision on refusing publication of this work in your journal is cursory, inappropriate and disappointing. At first, this work has its important practice significance and application values in ¡ Unfortunately, ¡. We carried out this work in order to ¡ Second, Journal of ¡ as the first-rate journal in ¡ should accept the publication of the important work in this journal. ¡ Third, this work related to ¡ is within the scope of this journal. We believe that this paper is suitable for the journal, because the Journal publishes research results dealing with¡ with a focus on original research representing complete studies, rather than incremental studies, and the topics covered include ¡, in particular, it covers ¡ In a word, we mightily ask you to reconsider the publication of this work in your journal, and hope that you can make a positive decision which is beneficial to¡in the world and can improve the quality of the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. With best wishes, Sincerely£¬ ¡ ×÷Õß: zhxd86 ·¢²¼ÈÕÆÚ: 2008-10-27 Dear editor: Author would like to thank reviewing the manuscript by referee. Indded, some unnecessary spelling error is existed, and author feel embarrassed. This can due to careless omission and poor english. However,auther feel that the revised chance should be given for improving the manusript, because author conceive that the paper quality is not so bad. Author has read the suggestions from the reviewer, and conceive that the paper can be revised as following: 1.The more clear figure. 2.Improving the english. 3.The more calculated details. 4.Rewriten the Abstract and Conclusions. Author hope that the editor can give the revised chance,and give some appropriate tolerance for the young and non-native author. After all, the most important is paper quality. Meanwhile, author suggest that the e-mail should also be sent to reviewer. Thank your very much. Best Regards ×÷Õß: woodbeing ·¢²¼ÈÕÆÚ: 2008-10-27 ż×î½ü×Ô¼ºÐ´µÄ£¬ÉêÊöÊdzɹ¦ÁË¡£µ«ÎÄÕ»¹ÔÚÉó¸åÖС£¡£¡£ Dear editor, This mail comes to request a chance for reconsidering our manuscript (No. XXX) submitted to the Journal of Applied Physics. "Name of your manuscript" (No. XXX) Our manuscript can be roughly divided into two parts, XX and XX, respectively. The first part, as evaluated by the referee, "is a worthwhile effort". For the second part, the referee pointed out three questions on the completeness of the physical explanation of our data. As to the three questions, we admit that one or two are indeed neglected by us in the original manuscript and following the referee's advice we have made some substantial revisions. After the revisions, we are sure, we have well handled all the three questions in the report and the referee will be ready to accept the new manuscript. The recommendation of the original manuscript from the referee is "Major Revision". Besides, at the end of the report his/her thinks "After that (address the three questions) the revised manuscript can be reviewed again to determine its suitability for publication." Together with the positive evaluation of the first part of our manuscript, all of these deliver us the information that the referee is expecting our revised manuscript. Thus, we ask for an new evaluation from the original referee for the revised version. We are very confident of the quality of the new manuscript and believe that it now meets the standard of the Journal of Applied Physics. Please note that the editor has rejected our original manuscript and the online submission for revised version does not show up. If you are willing to take our request and send our revised version to the original referee, please tell us how to submit the revised version. Dear Editor, As the corresponding author, I received an e-mail which informed me that our manuscript (ID xxxxxxx) has been rejected. A referee¡¯s report, as a standard procedure, has been attached to it. I have not the slightest grudge against the rejection. However, the referee¡¯s report is quite unconvincing, or, if I may say, somewhat irresponsible. I understand that Inorganic Chemistry is an honorable organization which has a distinct reputation of being most conscientious toward all the submissions around the world. Those careless remarks in the report might jeopardize the good image which Inorganic Chemistry has been well upholding. So I consider it a self-imposed obligation to point it out. Just for the sake of argument, please allow me to cite the second referee's report below. Quote: (1)xxxx (2)xxxxx .................. There are mainly 3 arguments against our manuscript. (1)xxxxx (2)xxxx ...... It¡¯s absurd for the referee to accuse us for the error we are striving to correct, and it¡¯s also narrow-minded for him to deny any other theories that he hasn¡¯t met or could not comprehend. So, I¡¯m not content with the remarks this referee made. Since I haven¡¯t found a second referee who can provide some potent opinions, I am hereby appealing for reconsideration. Please appoint us a new unbiased referee. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding. |
5Â¥2011-01-16 19:43:48
croninszl
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- SEPI: 1
- Ó¦Öú: 22 (СѧÉú)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.001
- ½ð±Ò: 6191.8
- Ìû×Ó: 4446
- ÔÚÏß: 543.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 131510
6Â¥2011-01-16 19:44:37
7Â¥2011-01-16 22:12:24
croninszl
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- SEPI: 1
- Ó¦Öú: 22 (СѧÉú)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.001
- ½ð±Ò: 6191.8
- Ìû×Ó: 4446
- ÔÚÏß: 543.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 131510
8Â¥2011-01-16 22:30:22













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥