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

longzai

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 11.9
帖子: 218
在线: 163.3小时
虫号: 594284

[交流] 一篇文章收到审稿意见，散金币赞人品

爱思维尔的期刊，我们专业的标杆性杂志，编辑给的是revise,不过审稿人感觉给的修改量还是不小的。大伙看看审稿人的态度？大家别光顾着拿金币，给点实际的看法
Dear Professor **,

The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form.

However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript.

Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.

If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please also:

a) outline each change made (point by point) as raised in the reviewer comments

AND/OR

b) provide a suitable rebuttal to each reviewer comment not addressed

To submit your revision, please do the following:

1. Go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/jijr/

2. Enter your login details

3. Click [Author Login]
This takes you to the Author Main Menu.

4. Click [Submissions Needing Revision]
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Please proceed to the following link to update your personal classifications and keywords, if necessary:

Yours sincerely,
**
**

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This paper suggests new GAX cycle. Totally, You need more explanations for your results. Please revise the paper followed by the comments.

1. Chapter 2
It is difficult to understand the GAX cycle only from the schematic flow. Show us the driving state point using such as schematic during diagram and so on.

2. Chapter 3
In assumptions, you show simulation conditions, too. In current situation, it is difficult to know what are simulation conditions. Please show us the simulation conditions separately.

3. Chapter 3
Your model only considers the mass and heat balance. Don't you have to consider the pressure drop for refrigerant line?

4. Chapter 5
You need more figures to explain your results -temperatures, pressures, heat transfer rates and concentraitons and so on-.
Only from the results of the mass flow rates, it is difficult to understand the advantage of your new cycle.

5.
New cycle seems to be too complex. Can you actually realize this cycle?

Reviewer #2: This paper proposed an improved GAC cycle to utilize low grade absorption heat, and obtained 20% higher COP than the SGAX cycle.
However, the authors should clarify the validation of the model in more detail. The author just compared the COPs from the literature. They must validate it by experimental results or thermal conditions including T, P, x and the COP from the litertaure.

[ Last edited by longzai on 2011-1-20 at 08:51 ]

回复此楼