| 查看: 2065 | 回复: 10 | |||
[交流]
虫友们给看看审稿人的意见，还有机会吗？
|
|
虫友们，帮忙看看审稿人的意见，看看是否有机会中哦！谢谢！ Reviewers' comments: The paper reports the structure and properties of (AlCrMnMoNiZrB0.1)Nx coatings. These multielement coatings are rather new and original. However the quality of the paper needs to be improved. Please see the following comments: 1. Grammar errors occur throughout the paper; English needs to be improved. Some errors are even technical. Just to name a few: P3, L10 XRD stands for "X-ray Diffraction", not "X-ray diffractometer". P3, L12 Surface morphology is typically "observed" instead of "obtained". P8, L8 Verb is mssing in this sentence. P8, L9 This while sentence is ambiguous. Please perform a thorough check and have native speaker check your English. 2. The Boron content in your target should be only 1.64 at.%. But the EPMA results suggest that the alloy film have a B content of ~9 at.%. This is almost six times higher than that in the target and is very unusual. How did this happen? Did you check the composition of your target? Note that even in the nitride films the B content is still much higher than it should be. 3. The authors claim that the peak in deposition rate at Rn=0.5 is due to re-sputtering of Al atoms. However, unlike your ref. 20, there is no Al deficient in your alloy film. Therefore there is no apparent re-sputtering of Al in your film and this reason does not make sense. 4. P6, final line. "bombardment by energetic discharge species led to a relatively strong re-sputtering effect", please provide some reference for this statement. 5. Can you provide more discussion regarding the tribological properties of the films? Particularly why the friction coefficient is so low relative to other multi-element nitride films. Additions of the editor: -the accuracy of the method of Scherrer to determine the crystallite size is only about 10%. Consequently, the results of this technique cannot be presented with more than two digits. Values in the manuscript should be rounded off. Please, note that "crystallite" is a better term than "grain". -The research highlights should be appropriate for stand-alone reading so every symbol should be explicitly defined. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
能否退出参与的面上项目解除限项
已经有24人回复
-
号外号外
已经有8人回复
-
filecode，4个jtjc了
已经有17人回复
-
人气不行了
已经有9人回复
-
没有任何消息-是不是就凉了
已经有6人回复
-
如果此刻你正在为国基感到焦虑，不妨来听听这首《基金之外》
已经有5人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有19人回复
-
建议基金发布提前给出明确的时间点
已经有16人回复
-
今日不放榜？网传国自然预计 8 月 27 日可查结果
已经有21人回复
-
估计是周四
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 最近投过materials and manufacturing processes 或者有经验的虫友们看过来
已经有3人回复
- 有投稿时附带推荐审稿人的进来看看
已经有28人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，虫友们帮我看看该怎么回答呢？
已经有4人回复
- 审稿人给的建议是“major revisions”,大家看文章还有戏吗？
已经有38人回复
- PRL 审稿意见求助
已经有4人回复
- 急啊！！投过中国科学的虫友们帮帮忙，看看这个审稿意见怎么回！！在线等啊！
已经有9人回复
- 虫友们，看看PLos one的这个审稿意见是什么意思，求指教！谢谢
已经有6人回复
- 审稿人给了审稿意见，全是手写的，龙飞凤舞，麻烦高手来指导一下
已经有3人回复
- 怎么回答审稿人，虫友们，给个意见哈~
已经有4人回复
- 帮忙看看审稿人这句话什么意思，我该如何作答，关于多酸球无序的问题
已经有3人回复
- 虫友们来看看编辑回复的意思是不是有审稿人建议把文章拒了
已经有40人回复
- 拜托各位做锂离子的虫友们给看看审稿意见
已经有2人回复
- 虫友们帮忙看看怎么回复。
已经有1人回复
- 虫友们看看这个审稿人的回复 ，俺有点不懂啊
已经有2人回复
- 有些希望，在此想感谢很多虫友们
已经有52人回复
- 投稿SCI期刊（小修），编辑给的意见，有经验的虫友们给出出主意啊！
已经有15人回复
- 虫友们看看这句话什么意思，怎么修改
已经有4人回复
- 没有审稿人意见
已经有11人回复
- 本小虫试总结的小木虫好帖集合[电子书版本(.umd)]以及网址链接集合
已经有255人回复
2楼2011-02-07 08:43:09
3楼2011-02-07 08:51:54
4楼2011-02-07 09:32:37
5楼2011-02-07 11:22:25
6楼2011-02-07 11:40:29
7楼2011-02-07 11:49:12
8楼2011-02-07 12:27:15
9楼2011-02-07 13:18:58
10楼2011-02-08 15:40:59
11楼2011-02-08 16:29:36
