| 查看: 1338 | 回复: 2 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
请专家帮我看看这个退稿意见还有必要修改再投其他杂志吗？
|
|||
|
一篇文章，投稿某SCI期刊，IF在4左右。在该期刊前后投稿2次：第一次拒稿，2审稿人，一个意见比较多，指出不少问题；第二个审稿人提了几条意见，给大修机会； 一个月后，按照审稿人的意见修改，并上传修改说明，前不久收到退稿意见，还是2个审稿人，不过第2个审稿人应该是重新找的。第一个人的意见比较多，指出的问题和提的建议对我帮助很大。第二个人就很不客气，说我的工作只是一个实验室内部的方法标准程序，谈不上论文的创新了。 我把2次的具体意见贴在下面，请专家们帮我分析一下，这种意见修改后投影响因子1左右的期刊还有可能吗？深表感激！ 第一次意见 Referee: 1 1. It is felt that this paper reports routine / incremental work rather than innovative research on spectrometric techniques. 2. Presumably the intention of this paper is for the proposed method to replace the existing Chinese national method. 3. The P technique was first reported in 19XX and has been widely used since then. In the reviewer’s opinion, nothing really novel has been reported in the submitted paper 4. In the reviewer’s opinion, the two page introduction does not add anything to the sum of existing knowledge 5. The paper cites 35 references, yet not a single national of international relevant standard on F analysis is cited.For instance a five minute Google search revealed: - Surely the above should have been discussed and cited in the introduction 6. The main advantage of the P technique over the atomic absorption technique is the improved limit of detection of the Q technique, typically 10 to 20 times. For R analysis, both techniques are considered to be fit for purpose 7. The use of a 50 mg S is totally unacceptable. This may just about be acceptable for homogenised certified reference materials (often supplied as <100µ dried samples). It will not work for many S, which are inhomogeneous and often very greasy. A sample aliquot of >500 mg should be employed for R 8. It is strongly felt that the routine use of perchloric acid in routine environmental analysis laboratories should not be encouraged on health and safety grounds. Aqua regia digestion is recommended by CEN and ISO standards and is very widely employed Referee: 2 This paper intended to describe a Q procedure for M determination from U. The manuscript lacks the sufficient details of literature. It is also poorly written without sufficient justification/discussion of results and writing deviates too often from scientific writing and acceptability. Such as claiming that “V” in section “W”. It is not clear if authors mean reduction or mineralization as both acids are strong oxidizers. Further, they try to emphasize advantages of the X over Y digestion, which not the scope of the paper. If this is to be a part of the work, more experimental investigation is needed to demonstrate treatment effects on recoveries and M performance. The reference materials used for method validation are water and soil that do not represent the chemical composition of complex S. Additionally, it is clear if these materials were processed by the acid digestion procedure. Overall, this manuscript needs a major revision both in experimental work and writing. Considering the experimental details, the manuscript seems more suitable for a short paper, a technical report. 第二次意见 Referee: 1 This paper does not give significant improvement from its previous version. The writing, design and scientific discussion still lack the quality for being acceptable. 2. Please do not start a sentence with abbreviation. Page 18 of 28 line 13. 3. Appropriate references should be provided for following statement on page 17 of 28 last paragraph. 4. Page 18 of 28, 2nd paragraph Please support the statement with appropriate references. 5. Page 18 of 28. I suggest that this statement is moved to Experimental Section. There is a great confusion with literature for X detection and experimental approaches utilized in the Introduction. 6. Page 19 of 28 The introduction section requires a substantial revision. It is full of statements like above. Please be concise in writing to clarify the objective of the study. In addition, Introduction is too long for a Technical Report. Please shorten as to focus on main objectives and advantages of A for X detection. 7. Experimental Section (page 20 of 28) Please identify what T-C solution is. The last sentence “DDD” does not make any sense. Please provide detailed information. 8. Section 2.4. Sample pretreatment. This section needs clarification. I think the section title is inappropriate since the section is about sample preparation, rather than a pretreatment. In addition please do not start a sentence with a number. Please see the statement below: 9. Section 3.2.1 . This section is experimental and reductant with information giving in the Introduction (see comments on 5). I suggest the authors EEE in The experimental section to clarify and improve focus of the paper. 10. Discussion needs a focus in writing. 6 figures and 4 Tables are too many for Technical Report. Please be more specific in your statements. Much of the materials presented as results are relevant to experimental design. Referee: 2 This manuscript reports optimization of a method for F. This is obviously a resubmission. The author made efforts to address the concerns and questions raised by the previous reviewers. However, many questions were not fully addressed or answered because of the inherent defects of the study. I fully agree with the comments of the two previous reviewers and feel that the work reported in this manuscript does not warrant its publication in M. I reiterate here briefly a few key points, which support my recommendation. 1. The H method for X analysis is currently routinely used worldwide. Its advantages and disadvantages in comparison with other techniques have been reviewed a number of times. Majority part of the manuscript reads like a procedure for developing a standard operation procedure (SOP) that will be used in the author’s own laboratory. It is not an innovative research. 2. The parameters selected for the optimization experiment were not appropriate. The I and J should not be grouped and optimized with other parameters because they are not interrelated with K,L,M,N. 3. The manuscript should be thoroughly edited for English. 4. Significant figures were not correctly expressed throughout the manuscript. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
我就是申请一个面上项目而已，这评审意见是按照杰青的条件评的吧？
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有3人回复
-
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有18人回复
-
国自然评审意见
已经有15人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有13人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有14人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有11人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 文章两次外审后退稿修改，现在该怎么办？
已经有13人回复
- 有没有虫子投过计算机学报？看看计算机学报给我的审稿意见，我还有必要修改吗？
已经有12人回复
- 初审退稿，郁闷着呢，大家看看是写的不好吗？
已经有25人回复
- 一天退稿，悲剧，帮偶看看退稿意见吧
已经有13人回复
- 大家帮我看看这个青年基金意见是几A几B几C，有必要这次申请重新评审吗？
已经有12人回复
- 论文被退稿，但编辑邮件说 建议作者认真修改后再投
已经有9人回复
- 在《电子信息学报》投了个文章，有一个专家审稿意见是“建议退稿”，结果会怎么样？
已经有17人回复
- 编辑给的退稿信，大侠帮我看看，有多大戏？（截止时间2011.6.25）
已经有20人回复
- 这就是退稿吧，修改后重投还可以吗？
已经有8人回复
- 一个月前收到这样的拒稿意见,修改后想再投该杂志,合适吗?
已经有16人回复
- 第一次投稿被拒了，大家帮我看看还有没有希望修改后重投。谢谢！！！！！
已经有10人回复
- Talanta文章被拒，但请各位帮我看看这样的审稿意见是什么意思
已经有15人回复
- 国内EI期刊，文章被退稿，审稿意见说可以修改后重投，成功率大吗，值得吗？
已经有17人回复
- 地球科学部三处专家的评审意见！请大家帮我看看！谢谢！
已经有19人回复
- 被退稿，再投此杂志接受的几率大吗？
已经有15人回复
3楼2011-11-25 13:21:10
2楼2011-11-25 12:33:24
30