| 查看: 2718 | 回复: 7 | ||
| 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 | ||
huaxianzi659新虫 (初入文坛)
|
[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
今天系统多次维护，明天很可能放榜！
已经有5人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有74人回复
-
岩土工程学报什么时候才能终审完呐
已经有4人回复
-
时间戳又变了8-15
已经有25人回复
-
2027广东省杰青
已经有6人回复
-
快农历七夕节了，轻松一下，男人悄悄话，女施主请不要进来。
已经有3人回复
-
哪位老哥知道今年的国自然具体哪一天放榜？
已经有9人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有26人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有16人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有12人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 咨询JPCB审稿周期？？
已经有18人回复
- ACS审稿周期多久？
已经有9人回复
- 岩矿测试审稿周期？
已经有3人回复
- 请问周期性边界条件什么意思？
已经有6人回复
- 【交流】十大网络版化学元素周期表
已经有17人回复
- 文章二审周期
已经有20人回复
- 求一款元素周期表！着急
已经有4人回复
- 哪位了解这几个光学期刊的审稿周期？
已经有9人回复
- 有谁了解这几个期刊的，想知道审稿周期
已经有13人回复
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
7楼2012-05-04 20:06:03
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2012-04-26 16:02:32
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。。。。。。 |
3楼2012-04-26 16:11:31
4楼2012-04-26 16:12:45
25