24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4019)
>文献求助 (290)
>导师招生 (176)
>硕博家园 (154)
>基金申请 (138)
>虫友互识 (125)
>论文投稿 (91)
>博后之家 (89)
>休闲灌水 (70)
>招聘信息布告栏 (62)
>考博 (59)
>考研 (52)
>教师之家 (44)
>海外博后 (38)
>找工作 (31)
>论文道贺祈福 (29)

返回列表

lucktime

木虫 (正式写手)

SEPI: 1
应助: 2 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.001
金币: 1679.1
帖子: 508
在线: 274.8小时
虫号: 1270848

[交流] 稿子拒了，一个审稿人，散BB求分析

General comments:

Good introduction and use of relevant references. The site description is also good and the methodology used is well described. However, there is not much new here in terms of techniques used. More importantly, the analysis of the data is primarily of the type "curve-plotting" with very little detailed analysis. The data seems to be of good quality and as such, I feel that the authors could have done more with it, e.g.,***省略, etc. The discussion chapter is very general and deals with issues that are not shown in the results cahpter, and sometimes not supported by the data. The conclusions presented are also mostly qualiative and (in some cases) not clearly supported by the data presented. Recommendations (both practical for the mine site as well as for continued work) are lacking.

Some additional specific comments: ,***省略

EDITOR'S DECISION:

The editor suggest rejection with resubmission. The dataset and case study are interesting but the general analysis and discussion is poor and not novel. More could be done also to provide to the reader some clear statement about what it is adviced or what can be done or not to monitor, study and forecast the evolution
So the authors should take their time to improve the manuscript for a resubmission to the journal

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.551.O.5.4,科目全,可伽急已经有5人回复
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急已经有6人回复
同事接到电话了，我却没有已经有4人回复
准备明年的基金了已经有5人回复
今年的WR进展到哪一步了？已经有6人回复
这种情况还有戏吗已经有8人回复
时间戳他又来了已经有11人回复
小木虫看见有人已经知道结果了已经有15人回复
这个自发加氧反应的机理是什么？已经有6人回复
J-J-W不为人知的一面已经有18人回复

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

文章被Mater lett拒，审稿人的理由是有一个数据不信！已经有16人回复
[求助] sci论文revise, 其中一个拒稿的审稿人意见该如何回复？已经有14人回复
IEEE 投稿后只返回一个专家的审稿意见，其它6个审稿人都拒审，文章还有希望吗？已经有16人回复
审稿人要求大修，却被编辑给拒了，是否可以申诉？已经有15人回复
ACS投稿三个审稿人一个拒稿拒稿的那个人提出的东西也要回答吗？已经有23人回复
自己的文章被拒，反而成了审稿人！已经有50人回复
审稿人对稿件很消极编辑拒了说可重投怎么办已经有25人回复
有没有两个审稿人一个拒，一个大修，然后编辑reject但是可以resubmit 已经有16人回复
徐耀: 从审稿人的角度看如何准备稿件已经有42人回复
一个审稿人对文章没有意见，怎么感谢已经有17人回复
投SCI大修，审稿人2个同意一个拒稿已经有18人回复

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

1楼 2011-10-08 11:39:44

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

seapass

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

★
lucktime(金币+1):谢谢参与

讨论重新好好写，重点突出你文章的亮点和重要发现，不要表面地分析数据，简单地引用文献，要深入讨论，挖掘出你的statement。最好选择重新投这个期刊。祝好运!

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

2楼2011-10-08 11:43:37

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

chenlj8331

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 17 (小学生)
贵宾: 0.068
金币: 7131.2
帖子: 943
在线: 1274.2小时
虫号: 613317

★
lucktime(金币+1):谢谢参与

引用回帖:

1楼: Originally posted by lucktime at 2011-10-08 11:39:44:
General comments:

Good introduction and use of relevant references. The site description is also good and the methodology used is well described. However, there is not much new here in terms of ...

修改后，重投，希望还是很大的。

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

4楼2011-10-08 11:47:23

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖