×î½üͶÁËһƪACS NanoµÄÎÄÕ£¬¸Õ¿ªÊ¼Ò»¸öÈËСÐÞ£¬Ò»¸öÒªÎÒÃÇͶ±ðµÄ¿¯ÎÈÏΪ´ï²»µ½top15%£©£»ÓÚÊDZà¼ÓÖÖØÐÂÕÒÁ˸öÖٲã¬Ò²ÊÇÒªÇóСÐÞ¡£µ«ÊÇ£¬½ñÌì±à¼»ØÐÅ°ÑÎÒÃÇÎÄÕ¸ø¾ÜÁË£¬ÕæÊDZ¯°§£¡ÇëÎʳæÓÑÃÇÕâÑùÓбØÒª¸ú±à¼Ð´·´²µÐÅÂð£¿
±à¼µÄÐÅÄÚÈÝ£ºAs you can see, there are three referee reports, and two are moderately supportive, but one is not. I had a close look at all three, and I agree with the concerns of referee #1 with regards to the novelty of the work. I also believe that the comments of referees 2 and 3, when taken together, will result in large revisions to the manuscript. I realize that you will not be pleased with this decision, but I regret to say that we cannot publish this paper in ACS Nano. At the present time, we send out only about 20% of all manuscripts we receive, and accept about half of those - without very strong support, particularly with regards to novelty, from the referees, we cannot accept the manuscript.
[ Last edited by cxksama on 2011-7-20 at 08:00 ] |