24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

woshidcy

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 469.9
红花: 1
帖子: 38
在线: 19.4小时
虫号: 618014
注册: 2008-10-06
专业: 原子和分子物理

[求助] 求助虫友们几个投稿后的问题，急！

各位虫友你们好！
我去年12月份投了Chaos, Solitons & Fractals一篇文章，一月份给了第一次修改意见，我们修改后投上去，文章一直处于under review 状态，到了3月中旬又一次回来修改意见如下，大家给我分析一下，我这篇文章还有接受的希望吗？我4月上旬修改后投上去，到现在还没有任何消息，处于under review状态。急死了，我年底毕业，怕杯具了我就完了。毕业无望了。
这次修改意见如下：
To my regret, I have to inform you that I cannot accept your manuscript in its current form for publication. Although the problem that you are addressing appears to be of interest to our readership, I feel that your work has not yet reached the level that would merit publication in a scientific journal of high standards.

I am offering you the opportunity to resubmit your work when you feel that your work has reached its final form. If you decide to do so, please explain carefully how you have modified your work in the cover letter.

Note that our Aims & Scope have been revised recently. They may be found on the journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/chaos. Further manuscript guidelines can be found in the Guide for Authors, which is accessible from the journal homepage.

I would like to take this occasion to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Reviewer's comments

It is unsatisfactory revision:
The reference on the work by
Jimbo, Kruskal and Miwa explains
which variant of the Painleve' is used in the paper.
The sense of this test is to prove that the singular
expansions (5)--(8) do represent the general solution
of Equation (4) in the sense of the Cauchy-Kowalevsky
theorem, i.e., to prove that these expansions depends
on a proper number of the arbitrary functions depending
on one variable, t. When we arrive at Equation(14) we
can count three arbitrary real-valued functions of
variable t, which is not enough, further analysis is not
clearly presented.

Still there is inaccuracy in the presentatiion,
say on page 5, it is written that $\phi(t)$ is
"an arbitrary analytical function", on the same
page just below Equation (8) under the analytical
function the authors mean complex analytic functions,
but in case $\phi(t)$ is complex, Equations (6) and (8)
should contain complex conjugate of $\psi(t)$, rather
than just $\psi(t)$. Actually these expansions are written
correctly because the function $\phi(t)$ is real.
The latter is important for a proper counting of the
number of arbitrary functions in the singular
expansions (6)--(8).

Equation (15) is not fully investigated, because in the case
$4+F=(9-(2k+1)^2)/4$, for any integer $k$, there appear
additional resonances that are not analysed.

Something is wrong in Equation (19), since
it does not represent any condition.

It follows from the paper that Equation (33) should also
pass the Painleve' test. At the same time there is a paper:
R. RADHAKRISHNAN, R. SAHADEVAN, and M. LARSHMANAN,
Integrability and Singularity Structure of Coupled Nonlinear
Schroedinger Equations, Chaos. Solitons & Fractals Vol. 5,
No. 12, pp. 2315-2327, 1995.
Where the authors performs, in Section 3, the Painleve' test
(in a very similar manner as in the present paper under review,
of Equation (33). They report some special conditions on the
coefficients of the cubic nonlinearity. So, I think that the
results should be compared and reported to the readers, why
some discrepancy occurs?
In view of the paper by Deng-Shan Wang, Da-Jun Zhang, and
Jianke Yang, Integrable properties of the general coupled
nonlinear Schrodinger equations, J MATH PHYS, v 51, 023510 (2010),
there might be that the results of the paper cited above are too
restrictive.

I also call attention to the work by Xing Lu, Juan Li,
Hai-Qiang Zhang, Tao Xu, Li-Li Li, and Bo Tian,
Integrability aspects with optical solitons of a generalized
variable-coefficient N-coupled higher order nonlinear Schrodinger
system from inhomogeneous optical fibers, J Math Phys 51, 043511 (2010).
Only after the comparison of the results with that work we can seriously
consider the paper for publication.

I call attention that much more is known about explicit solutions of
the coupled NLSE, so there should be also corresponding references and
comments.

Actually, the concluding part of the paper, I mean the part below
Equation (34), is also not clear since it contains some heuristic statements.

In view of the above report, I see that the paper is not ready to be
considered for publication and should be rejected because of the insufficient
quality. Sure, in case the authors will be able to work out all questions
mentioned above and they see that there is still something new to report, they
are welcome to resubmit the paper.

回复此楼