24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

jialucky

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 134.8
帖子: 87
在线: 6.5小时
虫号: 68162
注册: 2005-05-16

[交流] 历经三次大修6个月的第一篇sci终于接受了--附审稿人的意见

感谢虫虫们的家园，在这里学到了许多知识经验。
我的第一篇sci在经历了三次大修前后共6个月时间的煎熬之后，今日终于修成正果，同时宣告硕士毕业不用犯愁了。
再次多谢！让我们共同努力使木虫更强人气更旺吧

第一次大修：

Dear ******:

I am appending the reviewer comments on your paper entitled
"*******".

Please make the changes as suggested or provide a suitable rebuttal.
In view of the extensive comments, the revised manuscript will be sent
to the original reviewers to ascertain whether their concerns have been
addressed.

In order to submit your revised manuscript electronically, please
access the following web site:

   http://*****/

Your login is: *******
Your password is: ********

Click "Author Login" to submit your revision.

Please be sure to upload a point-by-point list of the issues raised by
the reviewer(s) and how you have dealt with them.

If you haven't already sent the signed Copyright Transfer Form, we will
need to receive it.  You can locate the form on the journal's Welcome
Page at:

      http://********/

Please print the form, sign it, and return it to us by fax at
*****.  Thank you.

With best personal regards,

Sincerely,

******

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: The comments on paper entitled "*******".

This paper deals with interesting topic of tribological properties of
********. The importance of the paper is high
and its contribution to the tribological investigations of sol-gel
materials is significant from the point of view of practical applications.
Besides, titanium dioxide posses many important features however its
tribological properties are still in the center of interest of scientific
community.
Although the idea of the paper is clear and comprehensive, the
following comments should be addressed by the authors:

1. Some minor mistakes in English should be improved in corrected
version. There are few examples below:

Eg.
In abstract "of a glass substrate" should be "on a glass substrate".
In introduction "numeral studies" should be "numerous studies"

2. The "sample preparation" section should be presented clearly i.e.
the English of this part should be reviewed. The molar ratios of the sols
compositions should be given simultaneously or instead of volume
composition of the starting solutions. The PH should be signed as pH. The
Si:Ti (Ti:Si) molar ratios should be given in sample preparation section.
The exact temperature of calcination should be mentioned instead of "by
calcinations at the certain temperature".

3. In paragraph 2.2 "Characterization techniques" special attention
should be paid in units and subscripts, eg.: CuK? (greek alpha) instead of
CuKa; ?instead of A; W instead of w; eV instead of ev. Besides, not
only models but also the names of the SEM and AFM producers should be
given. Also in another sections special attention should be paid in
editing of temperature sign (in reviewer version the 癈 is visible as ?).
Operation conditions of all applied techniques for all measurements should
be given in details.

4. In paragraph 2.3. Instead of  6 mm should be 6 mm/min.

5. In paragraph 3.1 more details should be given about the application
of Scherrer's formula. How exactly the calculations were performed?
Nothing is mentioned about the possible mechanism of the influence of
the silica content on the titania grain growth. If the studies
presented in this paper are not original work, the adequate references should
be cited.
AFM images are not informative at all. The quality of these images
should be improved. Generally 2D AFM images are more informative.
In Fig. 4 should be SiO2 content instead of TiO2 content.

6. References should be given in numerical order as they appear in the
manuscript text and cited in the manner required by TL (punctuation!).

I accept and recommend the paper for publication in TL after taking
into consideration above mentioned comments.

Reviewer #2: Different techniques have been used to analyzed *******. The paper is not
well-written, and should not be published in ***** until revised.

1. The paper is not very well-written. There are numerous grammar
errors and typos.  For some reason in several places the units of
temperature are missing is it oC or K?  Regardless, this should be corrected
using SI units in all places. Some of these problems may be caused by
different versions of word, Chinese versus English.

2. The analysis of the XPS data should also include analysis of the
peak asymmetry, not just the peak shift. I suggest using peak fitting to
split the Ti and Si component peaks of the ***** for the 450 -
470 eV range.  Are these shoulders shake-up features?

3. The AFM data is not at all clear at a glance as the images shown are
of low quality and very fuzzy. The same z-scale should be used for both
to allow for a meaningful comparison. Moreover, the exact mode of AFM
must be clarified, tapping mode, sliding contact mode or?  No details
are provided in the experimental section.

4. Fig. 4. RMS. Why did the author investigate the rms after sintering
to 500 oC?  (I am assuming oC since it is not clear from the paper).
What is the behavior at other temperatures, like 600 oC? Is 500 oC a
typical temperature?

5. Over how much scan area is the RMS data collected? Is it consistent
for data in this paper? The RMS surface roughness is area dependent and
tip dependent as well.  Where these data collected with the same AFM
tip?  How many sample areas were used to determine the RMS roughness?  No
statistics for the number of samples studied or error bars are
provided.

6. The authors argue that the reduction in wear protection of the
****** film is due to *****.  This is not clear form the SEM
images provided.  What evidence is there that phase separation occurs?
Since this is a major conclusion of this paper, the corresponding
experimental evidence should also be provided.

7. There are no scale bars on the SEM data. These images are also too
fuzzy to view coorectly.

8. There is a formatting error in the references.  Reference 2 is for
some reason in all capitals.

9. Overall it would appear that this paper was prepared with little
attention given and it must be appropriately corrected.  While some
interesting results are provided regarding the dopant effect of SiO2 on TiO2,
this paper can not be published in its current form.

第二次大修;
Dear ***:

I am appending the reviewer comments on your revised paper entitled
"###########".

Please make the changes as suggested or provide a suitable rebuttal, in
particular taking note of the comments on the language.

In order to submit your revised manuscript electronically, please
access the following web site:

   http://*****/

Your login is: ****
Your password is:  *****
Click "Author Login" to submit your revision.

Please be sure to upload a point-by-point list of the issues raised by
the reviewer(s) and how you have dealt with them.

If you haven't already sent the signed Copyright Transfer Form, we will
need to receive it.  You can locate the form on the journal's Welcome
Page at:

      http://******/

Please print the form, sign it, and return it to us by fax at
%%%%%.  Thank you.

With best personal regards,

Sincerely,

   *******

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed most of the requested
revisions.  There are still however far too many grammatical errors to have the
paper published in its current form.  The authors must correct these
errors prior to publication.  It has to be revised by a more proficient
native English speaker, as the current errors make the paper difficult
to comprehend.  The experimental section is mostly a collection of
run-on sentences and is too terse to clearly explain what was done.

A partial list of English corrections that need to be made:

In the introduction:
precious change to previous

Few researches ?perhaps change to little work has been done?
So, it would be meaningful to study. (This sentence is not useful).

Prepared by following ways? Prepared in the following ways

In the experimental section:

Ethanol solution ?  or just ethanol?

Normal load is 1N. change is to was

Dried in hot air?  This does not explain what was done.  How hot?  Was
the air humid?

The lack of details suggests that the experiments were not well
controlled.

In the main body of the text:
Fig. 1 exhibited?Fig. 1 shows?
k is a Constant ?change to small c

There are too many required changes to list them all.

Additionally, the authors do not fully address the question of phase
separation.  The AFM phase images are not clear indicators of phase
separation for this system as the lever spring constants typically used for
tapping mode are not normally high enough to spatially resolve
mechanical variations on films of this nature (i.e. hard materials).  With
materials stiffer than the normal force lever constant, the energy is all
dissipated back into the lever.  For polymers this can be deduced, but
the phase images shown here do not illustrate this clearly.  I can not
fully evaluate the quality of the data as the authors did not include
sufficient details in the experimental section to deduce exactly what
they have done.  i.e.  what was the lever constant? what was the tip
radius?

This paper is now more suitable for Tribology Letters and can likely be
published following revision, however IF the paper can not be made
readable, then it must be rejected.

第三次大修：
Dear******:

I have recived your revised paper entitled "*********" but
still note that, while the language has improved, there are still
numerous errors.  Since I do not wish to trouble the reviewer with these
language issues and allow the reviewer to address the scientific issues, I
will give you an opportunity to further improve the English.  In
particular I note that there are problems with the use of "the": For
example, in the Abtract there should be no "The" in front of:

TiO2, Line 1
microfracture, Line6
excessive, Line 7

as examples.

Please make the changes as suggested or provide a suitable rebuttal.

In order to submit your revised manuscript electronically, please
access the following web site:

   http://********/

Your login is:  *****
Your password is:  ********
Click "Author Login" to submit your revision.

Please be sure to upload a point-by-point list of the issues raised by
the reviewer(s) and how you have dealt with them.

If you haven't already sent the signed Copyright Transfer Form, we will
need to receive it.  You can locate the form on the journal's Welcome
Page at:

      http://*********/

Please print the form, sign it, and return it to us by fax at
********.  Thank you.

With best personal regards,

Sincerely,

*********

接受函
Dear *****:

I am pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript, "********" has been accepted for publication in *****.

Please remember to quote the manuscript number, ****220R3, whenever
inquiring about your manuscript.

If you haven't already sent the signed Copyright Transfer Form, we will
need to receive it.  You can locate the form on the journal's Welcome
Page at:

      http://********/

Please print the form, sign it, and return it to us by fax at
******.  Thank you.  Your manuscript cannot be published until we receive
the signed form.

Congratulations and best regards,

  *******

P.S.:  If you would like to have your accepted article published with
open access in our Open Choice program, please access the following web
site:  *********.

[ Last edited by jialucky on 2006-11-6 at 18:41 ]

回复此楼