24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

huaxianzi659

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2
红花: 1
帖子: 31
在线: 34.2小时
虫号: 1422964
注册: 2011-09-29
专业: 金属材料的制备科学与跨学

[求助] MMTA 二审周期

一篇文章投到MMTA上，三个月后收到修改意见。经过20天的仔细修改后提交，现在处于under consideration 状态，不知道要多长时间才能有结果啊？二审周期会不会太久啊？

[ Last edited by seapass on 2012-4-26 at 16:16 ]

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

面上可以超过30页吧？已经有8人回复
体制内长辈说体制内绝大部分一辈子在底层，如同你们一样大部分普通教师忙且收入低已经有18人回复
网上报道青年教师午睡中猝死、熬夜猝死的越来越多，主要哪些原因引起的？已经有5人回复
“人文社科而论，许多学术研究还没有达到民国时期的水平” 已经有6人回复
版面费该交吗已经有13人回复
为什么中国大学工科教授们水了那么多所谓的顶会顶刊，但还是做不出宇树机器人？已经有10人回复
什么是人一生最重要的？已经有4人回复

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

1楼 2012-04-26 16:00:00

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

seapass

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

超哥

SEPI: 18
应助: 772 (博后)
贵宾: 3.074
金币: 16567.9
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

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
huaxianzi659: 金币+1 2012-04-26 16:13:53

大修的话，时间可能和一审差不多，稍快点，小修就比较快了

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

独上高楼。。。

2楼2012-04-26 16:02:32

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

huaxianzi659

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2
红花: 1
帖子: 31
在线: 34.2小时
虫号: 1422964
注册: 2011-09-29
专业: 金属材料的制备科学与跨学

我的的审稿意见是
Dear Ms. LI:

Please accept our apologies for the delay in returning a recommendation on your manuscript.

Our review committee has advised us that the material in your manuscript contains publishable information that may be of interest to readers and suitable for publication as a Technical Publication in Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A. However, they have also pointed out possible omissions, errors, unclear statements, or other difficulties. Hence, a considerable mandatory revision has been recommended. This revision is described by the enclosed comments of the review committee, which are intended to be a constructive input to the review process.

When you submit your revised manuscript, your letter of transmittal should indicate explicitly how you have responded to the reviewer comments. Please note that your revised manuscript may be returned to the review committee for their comments and reappraisal.

Thank you for your interest in publishing your work in Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A.

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN BELOW THIS LETTER TO SEE COMMENTS OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Reader (Referencing comments):

The references are up-to-date and appropriate.

Key Reader (Points In Favor):

The paper is well written and represents an solid mathematical analysis of the processs. New insight into the physical process is gained including droplet rebounding and redeposition.

Key Reader (Points Detracting):

The modeling and mathematical analysis is not verified or validated using actual process data. Question: How are is the reader to know if the analytic model reflects the results achieved in practice? This point needs to be addressed by the authors.

Key Reader (Importance of Contribution):

As mentioned above, the modeling provides new insight into the physical process.

Reviewer #1 (Referencing comments):

The references are up-to-date and appropriate.

Reviewer #1 (Points In Favor):

The paper presents an excellent mathematical analysis of ---. It is useful that --- were included in the analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Points Detracting):

The paper is generally well written but there are some corrections in grammar which should be made before the paper is accepted for publication.

Reviewer #1 (Importance of Contribution):

This work gives a good presentation of the mathematical models needed to describe ---.

Reviewer #2 (Referencing comments):

The references are mostly up-to-date and appropriate.

Reviewer #2 (Points In Favor):

This paper is well written with a clearly logic approach.
This paper covers all parametric studies.

Reviewer #2 (Points Detracting):

Although it presented all essential prediction with respect to each parameter, this paper needs to show preliminary experimental data to verify their model.

Reviewer #2 (Importance of Contribution):

The main contribution of this paper would be the determination of optimum parameters to obtain desired shapes/geometries with best material properties.

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):

This paper is accptable with minor changes - to show an example of the comparison between prediction and experiments.

不知道这样的意见，录用的几率有多大呢? 修改稿已经提交了，等待中。。。。。。

赞一下

回复此楼

3楼2012-04-26 16:11:31

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖