ÕâÊDZ༵ÄÔ»°£¬ÇóÖ¸µ¼£¬Çó°²Î¿£¬¶¼Ã»ÓÐÐÅÐĸÄÏÂÈ¥ÁË
Editors:
The manuscript has been reviewed by three experts. The reviewers are quite critical. Reviewer #3 recommends that the manuscript may eventually be publishable, but not without a major revision. Reviewer #4 and Reviewer #5 recommend rejection of the manuscript, because it lacks novelty from an applications perspective.
We believe that there is some novelty in this work, but mainly from an instrumental perspective. Therefore, the authors deserve a chance to improve their manuscript in line with the recommendations of the reviewers. The authors should explicitly indicate the novel aspects of this work, both in their response and in the manuscript. They should carefully address all the issues raised by the reviewers and improve the manuscript were possible.
The English should be thoroughly revised, preferably with the aid of a native English speaker.
A final decision as to whether the manuscript can be considered for publication will depend on the response of the authors to the reviewers' comments and on the quality of the revision.
[ Last edited by freexuwen on 2012-7-4 at 16:12 ] |