24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

zhou_jun

木虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 3148.8
散金: 1800
红花: 5
帖子: 178
在线: 246小时
虫号: 816171
注册: 2009-07-26
性别: GG
专业: 光子与光电子器件

[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