24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

粪丁

银虫 (小有名气)

打腐败

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 100.5
散金: 50
帖子: 163
在线: 71.6小时
虫号: 839905
注册: 2009-09-03
性别: GG
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

[交流] 各位大侠，最近投ACS nano，五个审稿人，一个始终坚持拒稿，已经修改两次了已有3人参与

各位大侠，最近投了一篇ACS nano，八月份开始投的，九月初给了意见，重修给了六个月时间，三个小修，一个建议换杂志，还有一个拒了重投。然后按审稿人的意见狠狠的补了大量的实验数据，回复意见大概有4000多字。十月又投了，十一月份回来意见，60天修改时间，还是五个审稿人，两个直接接受，两个小修，还是有一个建议换杂志。后面又好好修改了一下，十一月底投出去，回来四个审稿人，三个直接接受，还有一个审稿人坚持建议换杂志

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

最近几年招的学生写论文不引自己组发的文章已经有5人回复
职称评审没过，求安慰已经有54人回复
26申博自荐已经有3人回复
A期刊撤稿已经有4人回复

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

坚决打倒学术腐败

1楼 2012-12-15 22:51:06

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

粪丁

银虫 (小有名气)

打腐败

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 100.5
散金: 50
帖子: 163
在线: 71.6小时
虫号: 839905
注册: 2009-09-03
性别: GG
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

第一次：
Recommendation: Publish in a different journal.
the manuscript can not meet the novelty criteria of ACS Nano for publication.
Additional Questions:
Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No

If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It is unlikely to be improved to be in the top 15%.

Is it appealing to a broad audience?: Yes

Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: No

Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: Yes

Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes

Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: Yes

Significance: High

Novelty: Moderate

Broad interest: High

Scholarly presentation: Moderate
第二次：As the method described in this manuscript has limited improvement over previous research, I recommend the authors try a different journal.

Additional Questions:
Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No

If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field:

Is it appealing to a broad audience?: No

Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: Yes

Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: Yes

Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes

Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: No

Significance: Moderate

Novelty: Moderate

Broad interest: Moderate

Scholarly presentation: Moderate
第三次：Recommendation: Publish in a different journal.

Comments:
In my judgment, this submission is not of broad enough interest for ACS Nano. The work described in this manuscript, pertaining to the preparation of a composite of graphene with MnO2, is interesting and of high technical quality, but this work is better suited for a more specialized journal in the areas of materials chemistry or electrochemistry.

Additional Questions:
Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No

If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It is unlikely to be improved to be in the top 15%.

Is it appealing to a broad audience?: No

Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: Yes

Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: Yes

Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes

Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: No

Significance: Moderate

Novelty: Moderate

Broad interest: Moderate

Scholarly presentation: High
各位大侠建议建议，我该咋弄