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

tonio

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 360.8
帖子: 79
在线: 25.8小时
虫号: 1356761

[交流] 【求助】一篇SCI文章的二审意见，跪求鉴定！

文章一审后进行了认真修改，今天刚刚收到二审意见（见后），原来是三个审稿人，这次只返回了2个审稿人，其中一个审稿人的意见让我很困惑，不知怎么回复，他说我的文章写的很好，但是不适合在这个期刊发表（一审二审都是这个意见），但是主编仍然在让我修改，这怎么回复啊？

Dear Dr. **,

The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form.

However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below or the attachments in your account), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript.

Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.

If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please also:

a) outline each change made (point by point) as raised in the reviewer comments
AND/OR
b) provide a suitable rebuttal to each reviewer comment not addressed

Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #3: Overall, the paper is well written, but I still stand behind my initial review that it is not suitable for publication in APEN. The topic is of general interest and it may be suitable for an Elsevier J. on solar energy or renewable energy resources.

Reviewer #4: The authors have substantially revised the paper and addressed most of the comments. However, there are still a few comments for further response.

There are many symbols in the manuscript and nomenclature should be provided.
The authors should state the main differences between meteorological and solar radiation observation stations.
The data points presented in Fig 3 are still rather scattered. Strong evidence should be given to support the argument 'good ternary regression relationships'. More statistical indices may be required.
The mathematical expressions including the input data for computing the parameters B and C should be provided.

[ Last edited by tonio on 2013-1-12 at 19:08 ]

回复此楼