| ²é¿´: 3225 | »Ø¸´: 16 | ||||
ÄþÏþ½Üľ³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[½»Á÷]
reject & resubmission »¹ÓÐÏ·Â𣿠ÒÑÓÐ16È˲ÎÓë
|
|||
|
ÈçÌ⣬Èý¸öÆÀÉóÈË£¬µÚÈý¸öÈ˰ÑÎҵŤ×÷˵µÄÌ«²ÒÁË£¬Èç¹ûÐÞ¸ÄÖ®ºóÔÙͶ¹ýÈ¥»¹ÓÐÏ·Â𣿠Referee: 1 Comments to the Author This paper reported the hydrothermal preparation of orientation-controlled WO3 nanorod arrays on ITO substrates and their optical properties. It seems this paper is an extension of a previous publication (Nano Letter, 2011, 11, 203) with similar chemical precursors, experimental procedure and morphology of the products. The authors may need to more clearly highlight the novelty of their work. Furthermore, there are a number of suggestions listed here for the authors to consider: 1. The role of sodium chloride is not clear. It claimed that ¡°NaCl may act as capping agent to preferentially adsorb on the faces parallel to the x axis of the WO3 nanocrystal¡¡± should be elaborated. The references should be given. Also, the authors need to conduct control experiments without NaCl to verify the role of NaCl. 2. The pH can very significantly affect the morphology as shown in Fig 5. The pH values are referred to solution before or after reaction? The pH values are very close and it would be nice to have control experiments in neutral conditions and even basic solution. 3. It is claimed that XRD can tell the orientation of nanorod arrays on page 8. The authors may need to elaborate further, and cite the relevant references. 4. The caption of Figure 8 should provide the basic explanation of the each step involved for easy interpretation. 5. The band gap measurement discussed on page 12 is different from what typically used to measure band gaps for direct/indirect semiconductors reported in literature by Tauc Plot. The authors may need to explain why their method also works fine. 6. There are typos. E.g., page 2, line 13; page 7 line 5. Referee: 2 Comments to the Author This is an interesting paper that deserves publication in CrystEngComm. The hydrothermal method reported by the authors is simple and effective in the control of the orientation of WO3 nanorods structures. The optical properties of the WO3 nanorods arrays were evaluated. However, there is a question the authors should address: the authors discussed the effects of final pH values on the orientation of WO3 nanorods structures. And WO3 nanorods arrays which is vertically to the substrates can only be obtained when pH=2.4. Can we get the same results when pH=2.3, 2.5 etc? Referee: 3 Comments to the Author The paper is devoted to the hydrothermal synthesis of WO3 nanosystems on ITO substrates and on their morphological and structural characterization by means of SEM, TEM, XRD as a function of the adopted pH and growth time. Some data on the system optical properties are also presented. As a matter of fact, the paper is a non-essential variation on a research theme, the hydrothermal process, which is well known and established in the literature for the obtainment of various structures. In addition, the manuscript lacks of important information and presents unsupported points, making it unacceptable for publication on CrystEngComm. Hence, I recommend its rejection and the main reasons for this decision are summarized in the following. - The paper suffers from a very bad use of the English language, and should have been thoroughly revised by a native English speaker. - The scope, innovation and impact of this work, if any, are obscure. What is the applicative potential of the presented WO3 systems? Unclear. The introduction fails in highlighting the importance and impact, if any, of the present paper with respect to the pertinent literature. Indeed, the same authors report on previous works related to the preparation of WO3 nanomaterials by hydrothermal/solvothermal routes (see page 3), and the only advance they seem to bring about with the present paper is the study of pH and growth time effect. In my opinion, this is not acceptable. - In the abstract, the authors claim that they are studying ¡°well aligned WO3 nanorods¡±. This is totally unsupported. I cannot see well aligned nanorods in any of the presented SEM images! - Cross-sectional SEM/TEM micrographs of the studied samples are completely missing. - Figure 1: the EDXS spectrum is presented, but not described in the caption of Fig. 1. In addition, the comments on this spectrum are very poor. Furthermore, the presence of contaminants, as observed from the authors data, undermines the validity of the present approach. This point should have been investigated in a higher detail by means of more detailed compositional studies on the obtained systems, for instance by XPS, that would have elucidated the system surface composition as a function of the adopted conditions. Unfortunately, these data are missing. In addition, chemical reactions on page 10 are mere speculation, since their applicability in the present case is completely unsupported! - Page 4: how can the authors manage in recording UV-Vis diffuse reflectance spectra for ITO-supported samples of the observed morphology? What is the ¡°Intensity¡± reported on the y axis of Fig. 9, page 12? Absorbance? Reflectance? Definitely unclear. In addition, the band gap values on page 12 should have been determined by the Tauc plot, as the authors should know. - Page 8, Fig. 6: the pattern of sample (c) is extremely noisy compared with the others. Is this only a problem of the deposited material amount? Unclear. - Crystallite size values are missing. - Page 11, Fig. 8 is not useful and the pertaining discussion on the formation mechanism is mere speculation. In particular, the role of Van der Waals forces in the system aggregation is totally obscure. - Page 12, Fig. 10: the recorded spectra are of a very low quality and the related comments are rather poor and hardly understandable. In particular, the presence and nature of defects should have been clarified in detail. In addition, a proper comparison with previous literature data is missing. - The Conclusions are not supported by the data. - The References are not representative of the state-of-the-art in the field. |
» ÊÕ¼±¾ÌûµÄÌÔÌûר¼ÍƼö
ÂÛÎÄͶ¸å¾Ñé |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
²ÄÁÏר˶283Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ14È˻ظ´
£¨µ÷¼Á£©Ò»Ö¾Ô¸±¨¿¼¹þ¶û±õ¹¤Òµ´óѧ0857×ÊÔ´Óë»·¾³×¨Òµ378·Ö¿¼Éú
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
±¾¿Æ211£¬293·ÖÇëÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
315Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
308Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
301Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
304Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
302·Ö 085601Çóµ÷¼ÁÍÆ¼ö
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸9²ÄÁÏѧ˶297ÒѹýÁù¼¶Çóµ÷¼ÁÍÆ¼ö
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍÆ¼ö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
Revise (major revisions requiring re-review)µÄÏ£Íû´ó²»£¿
ÒѾÓÐ43È˻ظ´
Çë´ó¼Ò¿´¿´ÎÒÕâ¸öreject&resubmission£¬ÔÙͶµÄ»ú»áÓжà´ó
ÒѾÓÐ38È˻ظ´
Éó¸åÈ˸øµÄ½¨ÒéÊÇ¡°major revisions¡±,´ó¼Ò¿´ÎÄÕ»¹ÓÐÏ·Âð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ38È˻ظ´
Reject with encouragement for resubmission (Major revision)ÊÇɶÒâ˼°¡£¡£¡
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
ÈÃÌí¼Ócover letterºó¸ø³öreject£¿£¡
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
Èý¸öÉó¸åÈË,Ò»¸öÖ±½Ó¾Üµô,Á½¸öÒª´óÐÞ,¸÷λ¿´¿´»¹ÓÐϷû?
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
Ͷ¸åJournal of materials chemistry A Òâ¼ûÊÇReject and Resubmission ÊÇʲôÒâ˼£¿
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Reject & Resubmit ´ó¼Ò¿´Ò»ÏÂÖØÍ¶Óлú»áÂð
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
±à¼ÈÃresubmission£¬ÐèÒªÏñÂÛÎÄÐÞ¸ÄÒ»Ñù£¬»Ø´ðÿһ¸öÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÎÊÌâÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
ͶAdv MaterÎÄÕ±»¾Ü£¬ÖØÍ¶ÓÐϷû£¿
ÒѾÓÐ21È˻ظ´
ÇëÎÊÔÚ°ëµ¼ÌåÖУ¬direct band gapºÍ indirect band gap Ö®¼äÓÐÊ²Ã´Çø±ð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
reject and resubmission ´ó¼Ò¸øÎÒ¿´¿´Éó¸åÒâ¼û
ÒѾÓÐ31È˻ظ´
IEEE Ͷ¸åºóÖ»·µ»ØÒ»¸öר¼ÒµÄÉó¸åÒâ¼û£¬ÆäËü6¸öÉó¸åÈ˶¼¾ÜÉó£¬ÎÄÕ»¹ÓÐÏ£ÍûÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
reject with resubmission°ïæ¿´¿´
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
IEEE CL µÚ¶þ´ÎReject (resubmission allowed) ÁË
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
×Éѯreject and resubmission ״̬£¬´ËÎÄÕ½ÓÊܵļ¸ÂÊÓжà´ó?
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
ÂÛÎı»Ò»¸öÉó¸åÈËrejectÁË
ÒѾÓÐ33È˻ظ´
yanwuliaorao
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (ÎÄ̳¾«Ó¢)
- Ó¦Öú: 1462 (½²Ê¦)
- ¹ó±ö: 0.088
- ½ð±Ò: 15622.2
- É¢½ð: 1899
- ºì»¨: 54
- ɳ·¢: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 15373
- ÔÚÏß: 1011.7Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1749011
- ×¢²á: 2012-04-10
- רҵ: ¼ÆËã»úÓ¦Óü¼Êõ
¡ï
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
| ±à¼ÈÏΪÓÐÐ޸ĵļÛÖµ£¬ËùÒÔ¾ÍÈÃÐÞ¸ÄÁË¡£ÖØÍ¶µÄÄ¿µÄÊÇËõ¶ÌÉó¸åÖÜÆÚ¡£Èç¹û²»ÖØÍ¶£¬Éó¸åÖÜÆÚ¸ÄÆÚÏԵĺܳ¤¡£ |

4Â¥2012-05-11 19:11:23
lihao180
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 6986.2
- É¢½ð: 1
- ºì»¨: 2
- Ìû×Ó: 771
- ÔÚÏß: 1136.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 309138
- ×¢²á: 2006-12-23
- רҵ: ÎÞ»úÄÉÃ×»¯Ñ§
¡ï
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
| Îҵĸоõ£¬reject & resubmission ºÍ´óÐ޲¶à£¬ÓеĴóÐÞµÄÎÊÌâÉõÖÁ±Èreject & resubmission »¹¶à¡£ |
9Â¥2012-05-11 23:11:04
jiawenlong
½ð³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 39 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 1643.6
- É¢½ð: 1295
- ºì»¨: 5
- Ìû×Ó: 887
- ÔÚÏß: 430.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1395589
- ×¢²á: 2011-09-08
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ¹¤³ÌÈÈÎïÀíÏà¹Ø½»²æÁìÓò
2Â¥2012-05-11 19:01:38
mfkmydmci
ľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 14 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 1799.5
- É¢½ð: 17
- ºì»¨: 2
- Ìû×Ó: 498
- ÔÚÏß: 814.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 45143
- ×¢²á: 2004-05-08
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ÐźÅÀíÂÛÓëÐźŴ¦Àí
¡ï
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
|
ËäÈ»ÎÒÃÇרҵvery very²»Í¬£¬µ«ÎÒ¿´µ½ÁËÒ»ÌõÔÚÎÒµÄͶ¸å¾ÀúÖÐÒì³£ÊìϤµÄÒ»¸öÉó¸åÒâ¼û£º The paper suffers from a very bad use of the English language, and should have been thoroughly revised by a native English speaker. [ Last edited by mfkmydmci on 2012-5-11 at 19:42 ] |
3Â¥2012-05-11 19:03:23
zhiyongwang
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (ÎÄ̳¾«Ó¢)
- Ó¦Öú: 269 (´óѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 48541.4
- É¢½ð: 4759
- ºì»¨: 26
- ɳ·¢: 3
- Ìû×Ó: 25660
- ÔÚÏß: 1151.3Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 897198
- ×¢²á: 2009-11-08
- רҵ: Äý¾Û̬ÎïÐÔ II £ºµç×ӽṹ
5Â¥2012-05-11 19:14:02
Ð¥ÌìÈ®
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 2171 (½²Ê¦)
- ½ð±Ò: 9715.1
- ºì»¨: 45
- Ìû×Ó: 3962
- ÔÚÏß: 302.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1362468
- ×¢²á: 2011-08-07
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Ë®ÎĵØÖÊѧ(º¬µØÈȵØÖÊѧ)

6Â¥2012-05-11 19:39:30
liyuanZ
¾èÖú¹ó±ö (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
»·Äܳæ
- Ó¦Öú: 75 (³õÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 3019.7
- É¢½ð: 16257
- ºì»¨: 40
- Ìû×Ó: 5809
- ÔÚÏß: 386.1Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 694598
- ×¢²á: 2009-01-19
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: µç»¯Ñ§

7Â¥2012-05-11 20:32:43
|
8Â¥2012-05-11 20:35:14
Eureka120
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 5935.9
- É¢½ð: 227
- ºì»¨: 3
- Ìû×Ó: 765
- ÔÚÏß: 384.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 448484
- ×¢²á: 2007-11-01
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Ó¦Óø߷Ö×Ó»¯Ñ§ÓëÎïÀí

10Â¥2012-05-12 00:35:38














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
120