小弟有篇文章去年7月份投的,今天刚收到意见,
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s), I must decline the manuscript for publication in the Rapid Prototyping Journal at this time. However, a new manuscript may be submitted which takes into consideration these comments.
还有一堆重投的说明
I look forward to a resubmission.
下面是审稿人的意见:
Comments:
The investigation is very intresting, but all the research work is not testified in SL machine, and the most test methods in the manuscript is for adhesives, not suit SL resin research. Morover, the most important properties such as tensile strenght, flexural strength, hardness etc are all not tested in the paper, so the results could not provide good reference to RP resin research.
Additional Questions:
1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: No
2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Yes
3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: No, some related theory and experimental methods used in the manuscript is correct for adheaive research, but it is not suitable to be used in Rapid Prototyping resin research,such as shear strength.
4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: No, for the SL resin, there are defined methods and experiments to evaluate the properties of photo-curable resin, such as shrinkage by fabrication a flat plate with certain size, tensile strength by ASTM D638,etc. but in this manuscript, the important property values such as tensile strength, flexural stength, tensile and flexural modulus, etc, are all not mentioned.
5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: No
6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes
看来这篇文章硬伤比较多,这算是拒了吧,大家觉得改后还有戏吗? |