版块导航: 正在加载中...

登录注册

应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

宁晓杰

木虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 4469.8
散金: 67
红花: 1
帖子: 194
在线: 146.3小时
虫号: 1800403
注册: 2012-05-07
性别: GG
专业: 无机纳米化学

[交流] reject & resubmission 还有戏吗？已有16人参与

如题，三个评审人，第三个人把我的工作说的太惨了，如果修改之后再投过去还有戏吗？
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.

回复此楼

1楼2012-05-11 18:55:11

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

yanwuliaorao

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

应助: 1462 (讲师)
贵宾: 0.088
金币: 15622.2
散金: 1899
红花: 54
沙发: 1
帖子: 15373
在线: 1011.7小时
虫号: 1749011
注册: 2012-04-10
专业: 计算机应用技术

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

编辑认为有修改的价值，所以就让修改了。重投的目的是缩短审稿周期。如果不重投，审稿周期改期显的很长。

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

阳光总在风雨后！

4楼2012-05-11 19:11:23

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

lihao180

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 6986.2
散金: 1
红花: 2
帖子: 771
在线: 1136.4小时
虫号: 309138
注册: 2006-12-23
专业: 无机纳米化学

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

我的感觉，reject & resubmission 和大修差不多，有的大修的问题甚至比reject & resubmission 还多。

赞一下(1人)

回复此楼

9楼2012-05-11 23:11:04

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

普通回帖

jiawenlong

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 39 (小学生)
金币: 1643.6
散金: 1295
红花: 5
帖子: 887
在线: 430.6小时
虫号: 1395589
注册: 2011-09-08
性别: GG
专业: 工程热物理相关交叉领域

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

为什么reject以后还可以resubmission呢，同问。

赞一下

回复此楼

2楼2012-05-11 19:01:38

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

mfkmydmci

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 14 (小学生)
金币: 1799.5
散金: 17
红花: 2
帖子: 498
在线: 814.6小时
虫号: 45143
注册: 2004-05-08
性别: GG
专业: 信号理论与信号处理

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

虽然我们专业very very不同，但我看到了一条在我的投稿经历中异常熟悉的一个审稿意见：
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 ]

赞一下

回复此楼

3楼2012-05-11 19:03:23

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖