| 查看: 1349 | 回复: 4 | ||
zhou_jun木虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
请问这种审稿意见怎么回复?
|
|
从去年十月开始写作,年底投稿,二月份收到审稿人意见: The article describes implementation and application of the *** parallel codes, and their input and output graphical infrastructure. The authors have been very successful in this large project. Their algorithms as described are well established in prior practice, as cited in the references. Other algorithms and methods, e.g. boundary conditions, and their strategy for dynamic load balancing, are not described. Results in several device contexts are verified by comparison to other codes. The development and verification of these codes is a creditable accomplishment in providing the authors with a powerful modeling tool. However this reviewer does not find new algorithms or methods, nor new physics or device results, in these manuscripts. Publication in *** is not recommended. 可以看出,审稿人先是肯定了我们的工作,并且评价还是可以,但最后还是由于没有new algorithms or methods, new physics or device results而认为不适合发表. 我们按照意见新增了一些内容,主要就是审稿人提到的boundary conditions, and strategy for dynamic load balancing等详细内容. 结果审稿人二次审回意见还是抓住这一点不放: In comparison to the original manuscript, the changes found are mainly the discussion of boundary conditions and optimization of parallelization, via re-partitioning for load balancing. There is no evidence that they have advanced the state of that art. The main body of algorithms as described are well established in prior practice and documented in publications. This reviewer still does not find new physics or device results in this revision. In the development of these codes, the authors have assembled a good selection of algorithms and infrastructure to fit their computer facility and applications. They then carefully verify their codes by comparison with previous results. This is a systematic, laudable development of their modeling capability. But I believe the manuscript does not "contain significant new research contributions" (item 1 in "Publication Standards and Review Procedures). Publication in *** is not recommended. 这次我们虽然尽力充实和很多内容,但审稿人还是认为没有创新点,即使后面肯定了我们的工作,但还是认为不能发表. 编辑让我们再次按照审稿意见修改,但我面对这样一份意见,完全不知道如何下手,毫无头绪.现在修回期限快到了,只好打算写一份比较详细的解释说明来回复审稿人,希望能说服他. 虽然这样希望不大,但事到如今只好背水一战了. 请问大家在措辞上和内容上怎么写比较好? 本人经验有限,请各位虫虫多帮忙支支招啊! |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
071000生物学调剂
已经有3人回复
-
085600材料与化工301分求调剂院校
已经有5人回复
-
081700，311，求调剂
已经有15人回复
-
一志愿北京化工085600 310分求调剂
已经有18人回复
-
材料与化工371求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
336材料与化工085600求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
材料334求调剂
已经有18人回复
-
331求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
332求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
一志愿南京航空航天大学 材料与化工329分求调剂
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 很不友好的审稿意见该如何回复
已经有5人回复
- 论文审稿意见回来了，大家看看如何回复啊
已经有16人回复
- 像这种审稿意见该怎么回答啊？
已经有10人回复
- 【求助】麻烦帮忙看看我的审稿意见怎么回复啊，关于SEI膜
已经有13人回复
- 怎么没有提交回复审稿意见这一项啊？
已经有5人回复
- SCI投稿审稿人意见是这样的怎么回复？
已经有9人回复
- 求助 这样的审稿意见该怎么回复
已经有5人回复
- 该如何回复这种审稿意见？
已经有4人回复
- SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences 一个审稿意见为中文一个为英文，如何回复
已经有21人回复
- 很有趣：当Reviewer变成文章的合作者时，如何回复他的审稿意见？请高人指点，谢谢！
已经有35人回复
- 编辑发错审稿意见了如何写信询问
已经有15人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看如何回复审稿意见
已经有4人回复
- 审稿意见回复请教
已经有4人回复
- 帮忙看看如何回复审稿人意见，急！！！
已经有5人回复
- 审稿人意见如何回复？
已经有11人回复
ahmau
银虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1102.1
- 散金: 1180
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 755
- 在线: 170.6小时
- 虫号: 755812
- 注册: 2009-04-23
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 爆炸与冲击动力学
2楼2011-06-17 18:07:07
starared
禁虫 (著名写手)
- SEPI: 1
- 应助: 19 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 0.001
- 金币: 6080.8
- 散金: 172
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 1825
- 在线: 762.4小时
- 虫号: 1137379
- 注册: 2010-11-02
- 专业: 样品前处理方法与技术
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
zhou_jun(金币+2): 2011-06-18 10:20:21
wg423(金币+8): 感谢应助，代发金币 2011-12-27 09:32:50
zhou_jun(金币+2): 2011-06-18 10:20:21
wg423(金币+8): 感谢应助，代发金币 2011-12-27 09:32:50
|
建议多看看文献,挖掘和归纳好自己论文的重新点,这个很重要. http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=3203353&fpage=2 |
3楼2011-06-18 07:24:28
sj1972
银虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1421.4
- 散金: 40
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 205
- 在线: 72.8小时
- 虫号: 739478
- 注册: 2009-04-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 作物生理学
4楼2011-06-18 08:08:59
5楼2011-12-25 20:29:34
