| 查看: 2802 | 回复: 9 | ||||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||||
[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» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 杂七杂八 |
» 猜你喜欢
293求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
0703化学336分求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
304求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
281求调剂（0805）
已经有8人回复
-
环境领域全国重点实验室招收博士1-2名
已经有3人回复
-
材料专硕306英一数二
已经有10人回复
-
301求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿天津大学化学工艺专业（081702）315分求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
302求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
26博士申请
已经有3人回复
努力着
荣誉版主 (职业作家)
低调隐士
- SEPI: 1
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 2.114
- 金币: 10831.9
- 散金: 1152
- 红花: 22
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 4586
- 在线: 369.1小时
- 虫号: 161721
- 注册: 2006-01-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 信息安全
- 管辖: 学术会议交流
2楼2006-11-04 21:12:00
0.5
| D |
3楼2006-11-04 21:55:13
4楼2006-11-04 21:57:36
5楼2006-11-04 22:15:40
1
 |
6楼2006-11-06 09:48:59
0.5
| 恭喜! |
7楼2006-11-06 10:05:33
blinkeffect
金虫 (正式写手)
 |
8楼2006-11-06 10:20:57
1
感谢分享 |
9楼2006-11-06 17:25:19
blinkeffect
金虫 (正式写手)
小白兔与小刺猬
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2026.3
- 帖子: 956
- 在线: 36.8小时
- 虫号: 226189
- 注册: 2006-03-23
- 专业: 聚合物共混与复合材料
10楼2006-11-09 09:40:18
