| 查看: 2339 | 回复: 8 | ||
| 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 | ||
[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» 猜你喜欢
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有17人回复
-
让我中一个面上吧！
已经有15人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有5人回复
-
跳槽后在研项目怎么办？
已经有10人回复
-
什么时候开奖？
已经有10人回复
-
今天放榜吗？
已经有16人回复
-
93BebMhtakh前后11位开头都是大写
已经有8人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有4人回复
-
只有每年这种时候来逛逛小木虫
已经有26人回复
-
filecode，4个jtjc了
已经有16人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 虫友们急切请问你们关于nanotechnology的投稿ID问题
已经有4人回复
- 紧急求助！请有经验的虫友帮忙！
已经有9人回复
- 【求助】硕士后公派出国问题，请教虫友们！！！
已经有13人回复
- 急急急！！！求助各位虫友，如何回答审稿人补充实验的问题
已经有28人回复
- 【求助】有没有虫友们去荷兰的？进来交流一下好吗？有些问题请教大家
已经有11人回复
- 求助虫友，校稿时杯具的发现一个问题......
已经有27人回复
- 【求助】我的Castep结构优化新问题（虫友们帮帮忙）（我真的需要你的帮助）
已经有3人回复
- 这样的审稿意见，让我何去何从呢，请虫友们帮忙，急呀
已经有11人回复
- 物理学报的审稿问题，请教虫友们
已经有4人回复
- 【求助】虫友们，做FT合成的应该很多吧，请教一些问题呀
已经有7人回复
- 求助虫友们几个投稿的问题
已经有4人回复
4楼2011-05-31 21:33:54
visitor958
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
IEEE杂志与会议专家
- 应助: 2283 (讲师)
- 贵宾: 0.05
- 金币: 17310.5
- 散金: 2544
- 红花: 76
- 帖子: 15735
- 在线: 2926.6小时
- 虫号: 489254
- 注册: 2008-01-01
- 专业: IEEE
2楼2011-05-31 21:21:13
认真修改，接受还是有机会的 3楼2011-05-31 21:26:23
5楼2011-05-31 21:37:52
40