24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

wangdongwind

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 23 (小学生)
金币: 800.8
帖子: 304
在线: 244.9小时
虫号: 1827724

[交流] IOP 的board level decision 后文章的命运调查及讨论最好有牛人解析

文章二审两个审稿人意见返回后又board level decision 一个月了还没有信是啥情况？

大家讨论交流一下，IOP 的board level decision 后文章的命运调查及讨论最好有牛人解析

[ Last edited by avast2009 on 2012-9-11 at 23:08 ]

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

上海工程技术大学张培磊教授团队招收博士生已经有3人回复
上海工程技术大学【激光智能制造】课题组招收硕士已经有5人回复
求助院士们，这个如何合成呀已经有4人回复
临港实验室与上科大联培博士招生1名已经有9人回复
想换工作。大多数高校都是评职称时认可5年内在原单位取得的成果吗？已经有7人回复
需要合成515-64-0，50g，能接单的留言已经有4人回复
自荐读博已经有4人回复
写了一篇“相变储能技术在冷库中应用”的论文，论文内容以实验为主，投什么期刊合适？已经有6人回复
带资进组求博导收留已经有10人回复
最近几年招的学生写论文不引自己组发的文章已经有11人回复

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

Optics communications 二审快一个月了 J Opt 在board level decision 哎。。已经有10人回复
Board level decision! 已经有4人回复
请问IOP的Manuscript for Board level decision 是什么意思哦已经有4人回复

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

1楼 2012-09-04 18:30:47

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

runnymede

银虫 (著名写手)

应助: 18 (小学生)
金币: 841.2
帖子: 1075
在线: 187.8小时
虫号: 404148

引用回帖:

18楼: Originally posted by runnymede at 2012-09-07 14:51:05
我投JOPT碰过，用了一个半月时间。编委可能太忙，最后他给的意见是：
按第2审稿人意见修改后录用。

Current status and history
Date Task description Deadline date/Status
01/05/2008 Author revision required 02/06/2008
09/04/2008 Manuscript for Board level decision Report received
27/02/2008 Original manuscript to referee Report received
26/02/2008 Original manuscript to referee Unable to report
26/02/2008 Original manuscript to referee Unable to report
22/02/2008 Original manuscript to referee Unable to report
22/02/2008 Original manuscript to referee Report received
22/02/2008 Original manuscript to referee Unable to report

Referee 1's report
The paper was written accurately. The expressions obtained are
correct as far as I can see.

Referee 2's report
This is good quality work, and although not a major advance in the area, it is worth publishing. It is convenient to have this method available for .... The methods used are not new, but I have never seen the methods applied to this general case.
The methods and motivations will be obvious to those knowledgeable with the literature, but not to the non-expert.
There are several minor points of confusion, mostly related to the language imprecision. For example, in the paragraph after Eq. 18:"...". I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
The physics seems to be fine. The English requires a careful edit.

Board Member's report
This seems a good quality paper that represents a useful advance. I recommend acceptance with consideration of the points raised by the 2nd reviewer.

[ Last edited by runnymede on 2012-9-7 at 18:56 ]