| 查看: 2186 | 回复: 9 | ||||
| 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 | ||||
olympus1215木虫 (初入文坛)
|
[交流]
各位大侠，帮忙看一下文章的comments，修改之后重新投稿录用的几率大吗？已有8人参与
|
|||
|
各位大侠，帮忙看一下，修改之后重新投稿录用的几率大吗？ Your manuscript entitled "A novel method ''has been reviewed and requires major revision. The reviewer comments are enclosed. Please address the questions and comments of both referees, and revise the manuscript accordingly or respond to the remarks. I have carefully read the comments of the reviewers and the Associate Editor's recommendation. On balance I find myself most closely aligned with the comments of Reviewer 2 - all of the points he/she raises require some rethinking and re-writing. This is more than a minor revision. The authors need to reduce the size and number of figures and have the manuscript carefully edited for the English usage as well. Some thought could go into including some of the discussion and some of the less important of the figures into an on-line "Supporting Information" file. In addition to the referees' concerns, there are some revisions needed to conform with journal style requirements for printing. 1) Please remove the embedded figures from the manuscript text file. The individual figure files are used for the printing process. 2) Please add a list of figure captions on a separate page at the end of the manuscript file, following the list of references. 3) Please move the tables and their captions to the end of the manuscript text file following the list of figure captions. 4) Each figure should be complete in one figure file, e.g., Figure 2(a),(b), and (c) should be arranged in one figure file, with the three panels stacked in one vertical column. Similarly, the multiple panels for Figures 4, 6, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 17 should be combined in one file for each figure. 5) In Figure 5, second box from top, "calcuate" should be "calculate". 6) In Figure 7, "controled" should be "controlled". I have attached the color printing agreement form for you to complete and return to have figures printed in color. When you submit your revision please include a rebuttal letter detailing all the changes that were made, referring by number to the referees' comments. Please note that if your revision is submitted within six months, it will be handled normally; beyond that period, it will be treated as a new submission and given a new number. When you submit your revised manuscript, please be sure you fill out the Copyright License form and return it to us as an attachment to email to Link Not Available Click on the link below when submitting the revised manuscript: Link Not Available I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Best regards, Editor-in-Chief The University of British Columbia __________________________________ Associate Editor Evaluations: Recommendation: publishable following minor revisions Associate Editor (Comments for the Authors): Please address the reviewers' comments and work to reduce the length of the manuscript without sacrificing content. Please refer to literature references where appropriate that would guide the readers to mathematical formulations. Reviewer #1 Evaluations: Novelty: Good Significance of Results: Good Conclusions Supported: Good Of interest to readers: Good Length Appropriate: Yes Clarity organization/writing: Adequate Quality figs/tables: Good Recommendation: publishable following minor revisions Reviewer #1 (Comments for the Authors): This paper is an interesting contribution to resolve overlapped peaks in data processing. The aim of the paper is to show how to improve the spectral resolution of the overlapped peaks with the simulations and experiments. I suggest the publication of the paper after minor revisions given as follows: (1) High value of S/N ratio is a crucial condition for obtaining sufficient quality. What is the S/N ratio in the experiment? (2) Is the error caused by subtraction of baseline involved in this study? (3) The laser fluence is commonly used as ablation parameter. I suggest using this parameter instead of the laser energy. (4) How many laser pulses used for the measurement? (5) How do the authors expect that this data processing technique for the sample with matrix effect? (6) Page 26, line 423: The authors use "noise" in the text. Does it mean the continuum background or spectral background? (7) Page 26, Fig. 15: The X-axis "the concentration ratio" needs to be specified. (8) Page 26, Fig. 15 and page 28, Fig. 17: Maybe it is clear to insert the equations show the slope and interception of the calibration curves. In summary, I encourage the authors to slightly improve the presentation along the comments above. Reviewer #2 Evaluations: Novelty: Adequate Significance of Results: Adequate Conclusions Supported: Good Of interest to readers: Good Length Appropriate: No Clarity organization/writing: Adequate Quality figs/tables: Adequate Recommendation: publishable only after major revisions Reviewer #2 (Comments for the Authors): Comments on MS. # 12-06822 This work presents an algorithm for deconvolution of LIBS signals. From the algorithmic point of view there are some novel aspects in this paper. However, there are many shortcomings that have to be resolved before reconsideration of this paper for publication . Novelty of work: Fair Significance of the results: Fair Are the conclusions well supported? Yes Of interest to readers of Applied Spectroscopy? Yes Clarity of organization and writing: Fair Quality of figures and tables: Reasonable Is the length appropriate? No Detailed comments are listed below: Major points 1- One of my main concerns about this manuscript is the considered objective function. Although the authors used different mathematical tools and non-linear optimization tools, the objective function is linear. Considering the norm of differences between original and reconstructed data does not justify the reliability of the method. As the authors may know, deconvolution methods are biased and different numbers of components by different shapes may give same values for objective function. Please clarify it. 这个我肯定目标函数是非线性的，不知道他为何会理解成线性的。 2- Another problem is related to the chemical rank determination (determination of the number of chemical constituents in each region). The analyzed data are univariate and determining the number of components in this type of signals is very difficult. They can get just an estimation of the real number of components in each spectral section. How could the authors be sure about the chemical rank? 这个我在文章里提到了如何确定，为何他有疑问。我需要再重新解释 3- The authors claimed the present method outperforms classical methods but the proofs for this are not enough. It would be worth it if they compare methods performance with more details. I think this is an important aspect that should be clarified. 4- The English level of the manuscript does not meet the required standard of this journal. I found many spelling and grammatical errors in the whole text. I strongly recommend the authors to improve the English level of the text. 5- The length of the manuscript is too long and there are too many Figures and Tables. The authors could reduce the length of the text and omit the redundant Figures and Tables from the manuscript. Please do that. 6- Theory section is again too long and it seems more like a thesis than an academic paper. Please rewrite this part with the emphasis on the important aspects of the calculations for the LIBS signal processing. Additionally, give some proper references for the rest. 7- Page 22: for the signal in Figure 12, please show the results for two and four components analyses to confirm that indeed there are three components. Minor points 1- Line 43: I'm not sure about this statement. With the advent of good quality computers (i.e. PC and laptop), computational time for ANN is not too long. In addition, the proposed method in this work is not so easy from mathematical point of view compared to ANN. 2- Line 49: change word "reliability" to 'reliably'. 3- Line 156: Relocate the position of Figure 3 to Figure 2. The authors have to consider the order the Figures according to their appearance in the text. 4- Line 382: References are needed. |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 sci ei |
» 猜你喜欢
浙江大学生物学博导推荐
已经有7人回复
-
大家慎重选择南科大李文甲
已经有8人回复
-
感觉在瑞典不适合做科研
已经有20人回复
-
还有，jjw不发布ABC的动机是什么呢？
已经有6人回复
-
像我这样的人申清北博士是不是痴心妄想
已经有14人回复
-
套磁信没有回复
已经有9人回复
-
核磁解谱
已经有17人回复
-
博士毕业16，两中两民；
已经有10人回复
-
作者署名：nature大子刊共一还是共同通讯？
已经有21人回复
-
跑板分纯
已经有3人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- Figures and tables embedded in text
已经有5人回复
- MS差分密度图，求各位大侠帮忙
已经有10人回复
- Move tables/figures to the end of the text.
已经有6人回复
- 请大家指点一下，我的论文状态是reject，但是编辑回信中encourage to resubmit
已经有72人回复
- 这样的意见还值得重新投稿吗?
已经有4人回复
- 求助：收到论文回复，不知道主编到底什么意思
已经有13人回复
- 审稿人给出的意见是extensive English revision，这是让我大范围修改语言吗？
已经有17人回复
- 论文退回修改要求提供可编辑图片，求各位大侠赶紧指点啊。急急急----
已经有3人回复
- 投稿某论文后收到回复，各位大侠看看是什么情况？
已经有20人回复
- 帮忙看一下编辑的comments
已经有12人回复
- 文章连续修改两次之后，再让重投，这样中的几率大吗？
已经有51人回复
- 如何回复审稿人意见
已经有17人回复
- 各位大侠帮帮忙，关于用线粒体DNA探讨群体起源的sci投稿杂志有哪些，很急啊！
已经有8人回复
- 投稿被退回，格式不符合要求，麻烦帮看一下，不知如何修改？
已经有5人回复
- 被拒之后resubmit修改稿的时候，cover letter 怎么写？
已经有10人回复
- 刚收到SCI期刊的审稿意见，如何回答审稿人？
已经有23人回复
- 语言修改。请大家帮忙分析comments的意思。
已经有8人回复
- 大家帮忙分析下，这种情况还要不要送复审，录用的概率大不大
已经有34人回复
- 文章修改完，回投，需要注意什么？
已经有9人回复
- 求助：主编拒稿了，我认真修改后重投还有希望吗？
已经有34人回复
- 投稿SCI期刊（小修），编辑给的意见，有经验的虫友们给出出主意啊！
已经有15人回复
- 投稿意见回来了，心里没底，给位帮忙分析一下！
已经有37人回复
- 投过催化学报的朋友们帮忙看一下
已经有7人回复
- JPCC 回复了 ，如下，让我选编辑，请大侠看看是什么意思？
已经有18人回复
- 文章回来，请大侠帮忙看看
已经有8人回复
- 请帮忙看下主编的回复,文章接受的可能性有多大?
已经有16人回复
accidently
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 59 (初中生)
- 金币: 1813.1
- 散金: 58
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 339
- 在线: 106.8小时
- 虫号: 1730643
- 注册: 2012-04-01
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 粒子物理学和场论
2楼2012-09-27 08:20:28
50