| 查看: 2773 | 回复: 9 | |||
| 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 | |||
[交流]
----------------------------------------- 已有4人参与
|
|||
|
Dear xx I'm afraid I must reject your submission for publication in Journal of > Power Sources. > > For your guidance, please find attached the reviewers' comments. > > IF you decide to resubmit there must be SUBSTANTIAL changes made. If you > resubmit: > > 1) You MUST make clear that if it is a resubmission of this paper in the > covering letter and ALSO enter "This is a resubmission of paper #_____ " > (add the rejected paper number) in the author's "ENTER COMMENTS" box when > submitting. Each of the current reviewer criticisms must be answered > clearly and separately in an accompanying letter (listing each reviewer > comment and your answer and your correction) and, > 2) Changes made in response to the reviewers must be identified in the new > text by highlighting with colour or by underlining. > 3) NOTE: "A high standard of English is a criterion of acceptance for > publication" > or the paper will be rejected (http://ees.elsevier.com/power/default.asp). > > > Sincerely, > > Chris Dyer > Editor > Journal of Power Sources > > Journal of Power Sources, Editorial Office > E-mail: power@elsevier.com > > Reviewers' comments: > > > Review: > > 2. Is it a new and original contribution? If not, please specify. No > > 3. Does it contain material that might well be omitted? If so, please > specify. > > 4. Is the manuscript clearly presented and well organized? No > > 5. Does the manuscript give adequate references to related work? Yes > > 6. Is the English satisfactory? No > > 7. Are the illustrations and tables all necessary and adequate? No > > 8. Is the summary adequate and informative? No > > 9. Are the conclusions sound and justified? No > > 10. Please list any additional confidential comments to the Editor: > > 11. Do the Research Highlights reflect the contents of the manuscript? > > 12. What is your recommendation? Reject > > > > This manuscript is not recommended for publication. The focus on this > paper appears to be the material characterization of the polymer > created. However, the author does not appear to account for deleterious > effects of water on lithium batteries. The methods note relative humidity, > which really should have no effect on the testing of a dry system. > Additionally the reviewer is not convinced that the as tested electrolyte > is even dry. > With regards to the electrochemical testing the assumptions of impedance > spectroscopy do not work for analysis at 100 mV. The magnitude needs to > be either <10 mV or >120 mV. Secondly no interest is paid in > distinguishing which ion(s) is in fact mobile in the electrolyte. Only > one, Li+, is of interest and it needs to be looked at with special > concern. > Grammatically and spelling wise there were a couple of minor mistakes > wherein letters were in the wrong order, a careful proofreading will > eliminate these. Ultimately it is recommended that the authors submit > this paper to a journal with a more materials intensive focus because the > electrochemistry as it pertains to lithium batteries is tenuous at best. > > ----------------------------------- [ Last edited by lalala1234 on 2012-2-22 at 21:55 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
今天系统多次维护，明天很可能放榜！
已经有5人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有74人回复
-
岩土工程学报什么时候才能终审完呐
已经有4人回复
-
时间戳又变了8-15
已经有25人回复
-
2027广东省杰青
已经有6人回复
-
快农历七夕节了，轻松一下，男人悄悄话，女施主请不要进来。
已经有3人回复
-
哪位老哥知道今年的国自然具体哪一天放榜？
已经有9人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有26人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有16人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有12人回复
3楼2011-06-21 07:11:58
mygalaxy1977
铜虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: -2.4
- 散金: 1301
- 红花: 15
- 帖子: 890
- 在线: 422.8小时
- 虫号: 325475
- 注册: 2007-03-17
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 数理统计
2楼2011-06-21 06:14:24
4楼2011-06-21 07:12:59
mygalaxy1977
铜虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: -2.4
- 散金: 1301
- 红花: 15
- 帖子: 890
- 在线: 422.8小时
- 虫号: 325475
- 注册: 2007-03-17
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 数理统计
5楼2011-06-21 07:14:24
25