| 查看: 2130 | 回复: 6 | |||
[交流]
clean-soil,air,water什么情况，修改前都快接收了，最后拒稿？
|
|
类似经验：http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=4402131 昨晚看到这篇帖子，结果今天就悲剧了，大家看看吧，求安慰，求建议！ 1. On clen.201200236.R1: Editor: Bandyopadhyay, Amitava Comments to the Author: The reviewer comments are now available that suggest minor revision. I have also read the MS and it is more or less acceptable. But I am unable to accept the authors following response: "The trends of OMA formation efficiency are similar in other experiments conducted with different initial oil concentrations. However, there are only two representatives’ been described. Because putting all data in same figure will make it difficult to read." Authors must show such variation : Shaking time (x-axis) vs E% (y-axis) at various oil concentration (at least four) for the two types [in an additional Fig (a) & in Fig (b)]. A few lines may be added in the relevant portion of the text (R&D Section). The manuscript is still require some revision as described above. 2. On clen.201200236.R2 Comments to the Author: The manuscript can now be acceptable considering the extent of revision made by the Authors. For clarity, minor corrections/changes are however, suggested on the manuscript which is attached. The authors have made a great effort. Thanks to them. 3. On clen.201200236.R3 The paper has been substantially corrected now. However, three minor corrections as noted are to be incorporated. Attached is your submitted revised version with those corrections indicated thereto. Show a sample calculation for the ratio of mineral to dispersed oil as indicated in the relevant portion of the text. Thanks for your great effort. 4. For clen.201200236.R4 The manuscript has not been revised in accordance with the requirements of our Journal and hence it is recommended that the Manuscript be rejected. 都按照要求改了，不知道怎么最后就给了这么个结论！主编貌似也是不看的，每次都是cc给这个Editor: Bandyopadhyay, Amitava 主编回信：I am sorry to inform you that your revised manuscript, "Enhanced Oil-Mineral Aggregation with Modified Bentonite", has not been found acceptable for publication in "CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water". The journal receives many more manuscripts than it can publish and difficult decisions must be made on the basis of an article's perceived priority. Your manuscript did not achieve a high enough ranking to be accepted. While disappointing, I must emphasize that this decision is final. 不知道该如何申诉~~~请大牛给意见。 [ Last edited by lisa1985 on 2012-8-22 at 12:39 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
大佬帮着分析今年的评审意见？该课题连续申请了三年了，明年要不要换个方向。
已经有11人回复
-
两块石头
已经有10人回复
-
广西大学-广州大学招聘博士后 欢迎广大优秀人才！！！
已经有8人回复
-
科研人应该花精力去思考如何解决问题，而不是去凝练问题
已经有19人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有15人回复
-
面上没中，邀请各位路过的虫友分析一下分数
已经有13人回复
-
初秋的晨风
已经有6人回复
-
学科评审组评审是指会评吗？
已经有9人回复
-
Ei源刊怎么投
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- JPS投稿接收了
已经有26人回复
- WM with editor 一个月，正常吗？
已经有3人回复
- 投desalination and water treatment，如何知道投稿是否成功？
已经有6人回复
- 圣诞前一天文章莫名其妙被拒稿，申诉成功后今天戏剧接收
已经有231人回复
- 因为语言等细节问题被拒稿，修改后重投给原来的杂志收的可能性大么？
已经有9人回复
- 【Pure water】I am happy that they are very busy.
已经有9人回复
- 请问：修改稿如果不按照审稿人的意见修改，会被拒掉么
已经有14人回复
- 文章接收后修改投稿单位
已经有12人回复
2楼2012-08-22 11:10:00
3楼2012-09-14 19:10:10
4楼2012-09-14 22:04:15
5楼2012-09-14 22:20:24
6楼2012-09-14 23:16:42
7楼2012-09-14 23:17:42