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

lishihuihao

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1188.7
散金: 10
帖子: 155
在线: 279.4小时
虫号: 1030329
注册: 2010-05-28
专业: 催化化学

[求助] 投稿退修已4个月了，应不应该撤，请求高人指点！

我于去年12 月投稿，今年1月编辑回信如下：
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels. It has been examined by expert reviewers whose reviews are enclosed. The reviewers have expressed serious reservations about this work that I don’t believe could be addressed through a standard major revision. In light of the comments received, I am unable toaccept the manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels. I am particularly concerned about the issues of clarity and novelty, which may be connected: perhaps the novelty of your work was just not explained well enough for the reviewers to understand.
If further experimentation, analysis, and revisions allow you to address the referees concerns in full we would be happy to consider a revised manuscript as a new submission. Please refer to the Manuscript ID above and include a detailed list of the changes you make when you submit the new manuscript. Your revision is due within 6 months.
根据审稿人的建议修改后，前几天重新提交，今天又收到如下来信：
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels. I understand from my preliminary reading that you addressed some of the reviewer comments on the earlier version of this manuscript. However, before I can send the manuscript out for review I must ask you to revise it to address two points that our policies now require of all contributions in this topical area.
First, I must ask you, again, to report the conversion data as reaction rates, normalized by the number of ostensible catalytic sites (i.e., as turnover rates). Preferably, the kinetics results would be captured as rate equations in which the Arrhenius parameters (normalized pre-exponential factor, apparent activation energy) could be compared with those expected from the likely rate determining step and with those obtained in other laboratories.
Second, especially because you have studied catalysts with varying pore dimensions, I must ask you to present evidence that the reaction rates have not been influenced by the rates of internal mass transport. A Koros-Nowak or Madon-Boudart test would suffice. Those tests will require that you prepare samples in which the loading of the metal is varied, at constant metal dispersion, and then demonstrating that the normalized rate of reaction does not change with metal loading.
You will understand that we are striving to archive results that can be readily compared across laboratories and that bear on the underlying molecular phenomena.
In addition, I can suggest that the reviewers and readers would be interested in knowing whether the catalysts behave the same when exposed to the same concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide and products when the temperature of the catalyst is controlled externally.
I am formally rejecting this manuscript to give you the opportunity to make those changes. If you continue to consider that Energy & Fuels can provide your work with an attentive audience, then, when further experimentation, analysis, and revisions allow you to address those concerns in full, we would be happy to consider a revised manuscript as a new submission. Please refer to the Manuscript ID above and include a detailed list of the changes you make when you submit the new manuscript so we can process it rapidly.
第一次退修，只有审稿人的修改意见，编辑并没有提出他自己的建议。第二次退修，编辑让补充动力学实验，否则不给送审。我提交的是关于催化剂表征及助剂对反应活性影响比较方面的内容，审稿人也没有提动力学，对编辑的要求我该怎么办？补动力学实验很费时间，结果也不一定理想，我是不是该撤稿另投？迷茫中，我已耽误了4个月，再重投还有多大希望，再被拒的话，时间就白白晃过去了

回复此楼