| 查看: 3526 | 回复: 16 | ||||
| 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 | ||||
宁晓杰木虫 (小有名气)
|
[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» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 论文投稿经验 |
» 猜你喜欢
售SCI-T0P文章，我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
小木虫上这么多卖论文的，真有人买论文么？感觉没必要啊
已经有12人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
各位道友，我要去昆明玩几天，回来见。
已经有8人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- Revise (major revisions requiring re-review)的希望大不？
已经有43人回复
- 请大家看看我这个reject&resubmission，再投的机会有多大
已经有38人回复
- 审稿人给的建议是“major revisions”,大家看文章还有戏吗？
已经有38人回复
- Reject with encouragement for resubmission (Major revision)是啥意思啊！！
已经有12人回复
- 让添加cover letter后给出reject？！
已经有23人回复
- 三个审稿人,一个直接拒掉,两个要大修,各位看看还有戏没?
已经有15人回复
- 投稿Journal of materials chemistry A 意见是Reject and Resubmission 是什么意思？
已经有9人回复
- Reject & Resubmit 大家看一下重投有机会吗
已经有4人回复
- 编辑让resubmission，需要像论文修改一样，回答每一个审稿人的问题吗？
已经有3人回复
- 投Adv Mater文章被拒，重投有戏没？
已经有21人回复
- 请问在半导体中，direct band gap和 indirect band gap 之间有什么区别？
已经有3人回复
- reject and resubmission 大家给我看看审稿意见
已经有31人回复
- IEEE 投稿后只返回一个专家的审稿意见，其它6个审稿人都拒审，文章还有希望吗？
已经有16人回复
- reject with resubmission帮忙看看
已经有3人回复
- IEEE CL 第二次Reject (resubmission allowed) 了
已经有12人回复
- 咨询reject and resubmission 状态，此文章接受的几率有多大?
已经有8人回复
- 论文被一个审稿人reject了
已经有33人回复
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
4楼2012-05-11 19:11:23
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
2楼2012-05-11 19:01:38
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: 815小时
- 虫号: 45143
- 注册: 2004-05-08
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 信号理论与信号处理
3楼2012-05-11 19:03:23
zhiyongwang
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 269 (大学生)
- 金币: 48211.4
- 散金: 4812
- 红花: 26
- 沙发: 3
- 帖子: 25664
- 在线: 1151.4小时
- 虫号: 897198
- 注册: 2009-11-08
- 专业: 分离化学
5楼2012-05-11 19:14:02
