24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 9473  |  回复: 39
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

liufuguo

铜虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 初审意见两个审稿人,一个强调创新性不强,一个要求大修. 该 怎样回复啊? 谢谢

4月份投稿,一个月回来审稿意见,两个专家意见不一致:
Reviewer #1: The authors have applied an adequate strategy and experimental setup for the characterization of the parameters involved. The work has adequate relevance with regard to the methodical approach applied. The experimental design presented here is simple, comprehensible and replicable. The advances of the article are very limited because the experimental approach and observations made as such are well known and adequately established. Therefore, the novelty aspects are diminished. The results show only a marginal advance in the concerned research field. Therefore, I regret that the manuscript is likely to have a low scientific impact.

Reviewer #2: It is an interesting paper, although there are certain points that need improvement.
.....

编辑考虑:Based on the advice received, your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions.

显然编辑比较好,请教各位虫友,这第一个专家的意见该怎样回复才能比较有说服力?修改好后还会送给第三个专家仲裁么?谢谢各位虫友。
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

思想者
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

hyliujinh

银虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
以前遇到这种情况,强调创新性不强是很危险的,如果回复不好的话,下次很有可能巨搞,如果可行的话,加一些比较前沿的实验方法或者新的讨论在里面,在answer中逐条列出
7楼2012-05-10 08:33:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 liufuguo 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见