24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1809  |  回复: 5

yuezhonghui

木虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 【求助】有劳虫友高手帮忙看看acs审稿意见,多谢!

本人新手,还望虫友高手不吝赐教,小弟多谢!
刚收到,不知接受希望大不大,是不是改好就能接收;有些问题有点尖锐,呵呵

Dear XXXX:

Your manuscript has been evaluated with the help of two referees and their comments are enclosed. Please submit a revised manuscript and detail in your cover letter any changes that have been made.

The reviewers suggest further mechanistic information to be included, which would certainly strengthen the manuscript.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Professor XXX
-------------
Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Publish after major revisions noted.

Comments:
The manuscript submitted by XXX described the use of …… complexes as…… reagents for the preparations of …… complexes. Overall, the manuscript was well-prepared. The procedure for the preparation of……complexes is simple enough. But the reaction time of 2 days seems limiting its practicability. There is a major doubt on the reaction described on Page 11. …….......

Additional Questions:
Originality: Good

Technical Quality: Good

Clarity of Presentation: Good

Importance to Field: Good
Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Publish after major revisions noted.

Comments:
This manuscript describes (i) ….. and (ii)…….
The authors have published the use of …… as a preparative method for …. complexes in a previous communication and I think what is included here is incremental from their previous work. The use of ….. is a new element in their work, even though the reactivity is neither unexpected nor in my view is going to have wide applicability. The scope appears to be limited to ….. while ….. have not been studied.
Based on the justification given above I consider the present manuscript unnecessarily long and more suitable for a note rather than article. The complexes reported are generally adequately characterised (there are some exceptions) however attempts to clarify mechanistic details are virtually nonexistent.
In summary I recommend rejection of the manuscript in its current form and possible resubmission as a much shortened note.


Additional Questions:
Originality: Fair

Technical Quality: Good

Clarity of Presentation: Fair

Importance to Field: Fair

[ Last edited by seapass on 2012-1-27 at 16:01 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

每个人都必须横越自己的撒哈拉沙漠。
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yuezhonghui

木虫 (著名写手)

第二个审稿人有些醚明显负面意见
每个人都必须横越自己的撒哈拉沙漠。
2楼2011-11-05 21:58:59
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)

超哥

优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

yuezhonghui(金币+50): 多谢兄台! 2011-11-07 11:37:55
好好修改,希望还是很大的。很明显第一个人意见很积极,第二个主要认为你这个文章是在之前文章的基础上多做了点东西,因此创新性比较低,也建议你改成note。我认为你按照第一个人的意见好好修改,回复第二个意见时,要体现出这个文章比之前的不同点在哪里,重要性在哪里,不必要说改成note,否则有的你折腾的。祝好运!
独上高楼。。。
3楼2011-11-05 22:19:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yuezhonghui

木虫 (著名写手)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by seapass at 2011-11-05 22:19:14:
好好修改,希望还是很大的。很明显第一个人意见很积极,第二个主要认为你这个文章是在之前文章的基础上多做了点东西,因此创新性比较低,也建议你改成note。我认为你按照第一个人的意见好好修改,回复第二个意见时 ...

兄台,为何不按第二个审稿人意见改note啊,他说的有点坚决吧,还望兄台赐教
每个人都必须横越自己的撒哈拉沙漠。
4楼2011-11-05 23:17:27
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)

超哥

优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by yuezhonghui at 2011-11-05 23:17:27:
兄台,为何不按第二个审稿人意见改note啊,他说的有点坚决吧,还望兄台赐教

呵呵,这是我的第一感觉,个人看法,当然你要大幅度修改同时参考第一个审稿人的意见也是没问题的,我认为这个要花较大的精力和时间。本来第二个审稿人给的意见是rejected的,但主编综合考虑了第一个审稿人的意见(较为积极),我感觉主编比较偏向于第一个审稿人的意见,而第一个审稿人就叫你按他意见修改,也就是research article。你自己决定咯,呵呵
独上高楼。。。
5楼2011-11-05 23:31:16
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chenhong_919

铜虫 (初入文坛)

了不起啊
6楼2012-01-27 15:49:44
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 yuezhonghui 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见