| 查看: 1691 | 回复: 11 | ||
| 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
|
[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» 猜你喜欢
为什么网上很多人说本周 12号出结果
已经有4人回复
-
基金中了
已经有15人回复
-
帮忙看看fileCode
已经有8人回复
-
小木虫上这么多卖论文的，真有人买论文么？感觉没必要啊
已经有3人回复
-
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有15人回复
-
filecode
已经有8人回复
-
确定了，国自然21号放榜
已经有7人回复
-
综述论文作为代表作会不会影响评审专家的印象分？
已经有11人回复
-
关于代码变化问题，想知道的进来
已经有24人回复
-
静等基金结果
已经有16人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 贝克曼毛细管电泳出峰分叉
已经有11人回复
- Angewandte Chemie悲剧，两个审稿人意见都是修改，改投还是申诉啊？
已经有9人回复
- 小修没有完全回答审稿人意见，会不会悲剧啊？
已经有21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
- 等了三个月悲剧了，还没有神马审稿意见。
已经有56人回复
- 最悲剧的不是被退稿，而是退稿了却没有得到任何有意义的意见！
已经有19人回复
- 懂韩语的进来帮忙看看文章是不是悲剧了
已经有4人回复
- -----------------------------------------
已经有9人回复
- 文章被退修，悲剧
已经有21人回复
- 太神速了！！！我的论文投稿后4天由外审转为复审，我的稿件是不是悲剧了？
已经有33人回复
- 悲剧 一篇文章被拒
已经有4人回复
- 我的第一篇文章~ 有点悲剧。。求教
已经有17人回复
- 有比我更悲剧的吗？说说你最长审稿时间的一篇文章
已经有40人回复
- 悲剧的稿子认真修改后再投这个杂志可以不？
已经有16人回复
- 悲剧！文章被接受，一查不是SCI收录期刊，怎么办？
已经有71人回复
wangyidong9165
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 16 (小学生)
- 金币: 559.9
- 散金: 41
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 106
- 在线: 101.5小时
- 虫号: 633139
- 注册: 2008-10-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 土壤学
4楼2012-01-11 15:41:04
wellyy2005
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
s
- SEPI: 5
- 应助: 911 (博后)
- 贵宾: 0.81
- 金币: 34048.3
- 散金: 7213
- 红花: 74
- 沙发: 32
- 帖子: 15755
- 在线: 1752.8小时
- 虫号: 498546
- 注册: 2008-02-04
- 专业: 肿瘤综合治疗
2楼2012-01-11 15:07:30
ljtwcx
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 112 (高中生)
- 金币: 17542.6
- 散金: 2678
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 9170
- 在线: 1008.9小时
- 虫号: 839508
- 注册: 2009-09-03
- 专业: 自然语言理解与机器翻译
3楼2012-01-11 15:28:47
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
jonavy(金币+10): 很多地方难以再深入修改，更高的杂志不敢奢望了，目前都不知道怎么修改了 2012-01-11 16:14:00
jonavy(金币+10): 很多地方难以再深入修改，更高的杂志不敢奢望了，目前都不知道怎么修改了 2012-01-11 16:14:00
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
5楼2012-01-11 15:58:56
