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

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

[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

孩子确诊有中度注意力缺陷已经有14人回复
三甲基碘化亚砜的氧化反应已经有4人回复
请问下大家为什么这个铃木偶联几乎不反应呢已经有5人回复
请问有评职称，把科研教学业绩算分排序的高校吗已经有5人回复
2025冷门绝学什么时候出结果已经有3人回复
天津工业大学郑柳春团队欢迎化学化工、高分子化学或有机合成方向的博士生和硕士生加入已经有4人回复
康复大学泰山学者周祺惠团队招收博士研究生已经有6人回复
AI论文写作工具：是科研加速器还是学术作弊器？已经有3人回复
论文投稿，期刊推荐已经有4人回复
请问2026国家基金面上项目会启动申2停1吗已经有5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

1楼2012-03-13 21:34:33

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

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

引用回帖:

6楼: Originally posted by seapass at 2012-03-14 14:41:57:
老是拿帽子盖的所谓专家好对付，这说明他们对你的内容不专业，你就用几个很专业的术语解说给回应这种帽子意见，他们就哑火了，当然你的那些专业要不是瞎扯的，编辑的意见比较关键！编辑能从意见里看出审稿人的水 ...

我猜测也是这个原因吧，审稿人随便提了点问题。我重点在前沿，结果与讨论部分的讨论里面详细的阐述了新颖性，以及结论部分也修改了一下，提升了新颖性。改动整体还是蛮大的，主要是又仔细的提炼了一下文章的创新点，以及这个领域的贡献。

你说认真仔细回答，编辑不会拒绝吧。特怕砸了。这是俺第一篇 SCI。。还有1篇差不多同时投出去的，也回来信了，大改。。。。一下子2篇。但是又特担心这2篇不能顺利接受啊