| 查看: 2943 | 回复: 10 | |||
| 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 | |||
carolwang123金虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
BRT审稿意见回来了 已有4人参与
|
||
|
感觉审稿人意见蛮大的，编辑给了小修。BRT上文章，关于超滤膜物理机理分析的文章。第一个审稿人意见咋回啊。。。都是大帽子 We have received reviewer's reports on your above manuscript. They indicated that it could be acceptable for publication if you can suitably address the comments (included below). I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript within 30 days. If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please highlight in yellow the changes made in revised version 。 Reviewer #1: Paper structure, in terms of problems statement, data presentation with methods, and solving procedures (with adapted models), looks fine and also there seems big faults and significant corrections. But, I also feel it is not easy to find new findings and/or new rational over existing research results (paers). However, to improve the quality of the paper, I strongly recommend authors to add what improvements, over existing methodologies to prove (and overcome) organic fouling, were found, and what purposes of the tested models are, with overall and/or specific research objectives, with connection to presented data and discussions. Reviewer #2: This is an interesting paper where membrane fouling mechanism in ultrafiltration of succinic acid fermentation broth is analysed in detail for different membranes. The selection of ultrafiltration for downstream separation as an alternative to other operation units is very interesting from the point of view of the biotechnological process (succinic production from renewable resources vs the conventional petrochemical process). The paper is well structured and the objectives are clearly stated. Experiments are well defined and the results correctly addressed. However, conclusions are not very novel and the paper does not add any significant contribution to the state of the art knowledge in this field. My suggestion is to (weak) accept the manuscript for publication, but only if the editor considers that the determination of the blocking mechanism that controls the four membranes analysed with different feed and operation conditions is interesting enough for BITE readers. SEM and AFM images (and the corresponding data treatment) are an interesting complement to the paper. A final discussion about the potential use of this fouling mechanism determination as a tool for real time control (in comparison with other on-line fouling rate monitoring tools) would add relevance to the paper. Some minor details should be addressed before definitive acceptance. - The four major factors considered in the resistance-in-series model should be specified in the introduction. Otherwise the reader can be confused with the four mechanistic sub-models of the semi-empirical Hermia's model. On the other hand, these four factors are repeated up to three times in the same page 5. - Page 4, lines 45-50. This sentence "Thus. Hermia's model... the flux decline" is referred to the previous reference (Ho Chia-Chi and Zidney 2000)? Or it is an explanation about the work done in the paper. If this is the case this is already stated in the next paragraph (page 4, lines 53-59). Avoid repetition. - Page 9, line 45. DI? - Page 9, is the membrane operated in cycles with backwashing/relaxation to avoid fouling. If that is the case specify the sequence. - Page 10, line 53. Avoid informal expressions like "what's more" - English should be improved (some grammatical mistakes: e.g. page 4 line 42 "are still existed", page 10, lines 56-59 "For the membrane XXX, it displayed a...", some words misused: page 5, line 3 "detected" instead of measured/analysed/monitored, page 5 line 9 "choosing" instead of "selection", page 13, line 9 "serious" instead of "severe", etc.. Other: - the journal usually does not publish raw data such as SEM or AFM pictures. So, please remove figures 4 and 5 and submit them as supplementary (electronic) material - please number references in the list |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
今日不放榜？网传国自然预计 8 月 27 日可查结果
已经有21人回复
-
能否退出参与的面上项目解除限项
已经有17人回复
-
估计是周四
已经有4人回复
-
我面上完蛋了
已经有9人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有18人回复
-
建议基金发布提前给出明确的时间点
已经有15人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有7人回复
-
朋友圈看到的
已经有9人回复
-
让我中一个面上吧！
已经有16人回复
-
放榜前的不淡定
已经有17人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 审稿意见回来了，大修，修改意见里有句话不太懂，求助！！
已经有5人回复
- APL审稿意见回来了，我却崩溃了！
已经有36人回复
- 审稿意见刚回来，审稿人的编号是指什么，求助
已经有11人回复
- SCI审稿意见回来了，编辑给的moderate revision，麻烦大家帮分析一下，有BB
已经有28人回复
- 11月1日下午刚送外审，11月2日傍晚显示已有一个审稿意见回来了，说明什么，被拒绝了？
已经有25人回复
- World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology审稿意见回来了
已经有9人回复
- 一篇文章major revision后，审稿意见已经回来1周了，还是没有消息
已经有23人回复
- SCI文章审稿人意见回来，却不知如何答复，请各位前辈指点
已经有7人回复
- 审稿意见回来，一个审稿人让据，编辑说大修，大家帮我看看希望大不
已经有24人回复
gentleman891
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 39 (小学生)
- 金币: 3451.3
- 散金: 536
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 505
- 在线: 247小时
- 虫号: 538117
- 注册: 2008-04-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生物化工与食品化工
★
小木虫(金币+0.5): 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫(金币+0.5): 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
BRT是啥杂志阿，bioresource technology? 咋感觉这审稿人不咋认真呢 |
carolwang123
3楼2012-03-14 06:50:10
seapass
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
超哥
- SEPI: 18
- 应助: 772 (博后)
- 贵宾: 3.074
- 金币: 16568.4
- 散金: 5496
- 红花: 82
- 沙发: 10
- 帖子: 3728
- 在线: 930.8小时
- 虫号: 441856
- 注册: 2007-10-27
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 海洋环境科学
2楼2012-03-13 21:43:09
carolwang123
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2081
- 散金: 248
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 208
- 在线: 196.8小时
- 虫号: 1409785
- 注册: 2011-09-20
- 专业: 生物化工与食品化工
4楼2012-03-14 08:54:10
carolwang123
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2081
- 散金: 248
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 208
- 在线: 196.8小时
- 虫号: 1409785
- 注册: 2011-09-20
- 专业: 生物化工与食品化工
5楼2012-03-14 08:55:39
