24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

jonavy

金虫 (小有名气)

奔向月球

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 36
散金: 713
帖子: 270
在线: 51.2小时
虫号: 942188
注册: 2010-01-14
专业: 金属与非金属地下开采

[求助] 稿子悲剧了，贴意见求分析

With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in ******** as an original paper. Attached, please find the reviewers' comments.

The first reviewer is of the opinion that, although the field examples of real rock behaviour are potentially valuable, the manuscript in its present form has too many problems to be publishable in the Journal. The same reviewer points out that:
1.the introduction is superficial and the lumping together of all major discontinuities as "faults", albeit that they have later movement on them is incorrect and would confuse the literature.
2.the physical models lack the scientific basis to justify any conclusions .
3.the statement on page 8 that the formation of the solidified model is similar to "the conditions under which the rock mass solidified" illustrates quite clearly the lack of any appreciation of the geological reality by the authors.

The second reviewer feels that the results reported can be considered of interest from a qualitative point of view only. He is suggesting to have the contribution rewritten in the form of a technical note. He points out the following:
1.a quantitative comparison with numerical modelling and a detailed structural analysis of the pit mine are lacking.
2.in many portions of the manuscript, an "unscientific" language is used.
3.the general organisation of the work need to be greatly improved.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that your manuscript should be re-written in the form of a technical note (2000 to 2500 words, 5 figures, no abstract is needed) by accounting for the reviewers' comments which are attached herewith.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

Sincerely yours,

注：最后给的reject

[ Last edited by jonavy on 2012-1-11 at 14:51 ]

回复此楼