24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4399)
>基金申请 (524)
>文献求助 (311)
>虫友互识 (247)
>休闲灌水 (229)
>硕博家园 (200)
>导师招生 (197)
>论文投稿 (126)
>考研 (104)
>考博 (102)
>教师之家 (73)
>公派出国 (73)
>论文道贺祈福 (61)
>博后之家 (60)
>招聘信息布告栏 (39)
>SciFinder/Reaxys (35)

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

lihuijia

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 20.1
帖子: 39
在线: 36.6小时
虫号: 842883

[交流] Physical review e投稿被拒，能申述吗？成功率多少？

Physical Review E被拒，其中一个审稿人拒稿，但是说的很差劲，能申诉吗？成功率多少？
审稿意见如下：The above manuscript has been reviewed by two of our referees.
Comments from the reports appear below.

We regret that in view of the comments of the second referee we cannot
accept the paper for publication in the Physical Review.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

physical review b审稿人好像要求大改，修改后直接接受已经有15人回复
physical review B 投稿图片表格求助已经有6人回复
Physical review投稿程序求助已经有6人回复
求Physical Review E 或SIAM Review 投稿模板已经有4人回复
PHYSICAL REVIEW E 怎么样已经有7人回复
Physical Review B 已经有9人回复
physical review letters 投稿询问已经有17人回复
关于PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 已经有32人回复

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

1楼 2013-06-01 02:14:08

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

lihuijia

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 20.1
帖子: 39
在线: 36.6小时
虫号: 842883

引用回帖:

2楼: Originally posted by googleuboy at 2013-06-01 04:03:31
附上R2的意见

Report of the Second Referee ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The manuscript is not clearly written and hard to follow the
calculation due to the lack of details. The manuscript seems to have
significant overlap with the previous papers by some of the authors.
Some results do not seem to agree with previously published results.
For instance, Lancichinetti et al. previously showed that the clique
percolation method does not perform well with their benchmarks,
understandably because CPM relies on local clique structure while the
benchmarks do not have enough cliques. However, one of the figures in
the manuscript shows otherwise. I would not recommend the article for
the publication in PRE.