24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者lefory将赠送您 30 个金币

lefory

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 63
帖子: 21
在线: 4小时
虫号: 2248883
注册: 2013-01-18
专业: 粘合剂

[求助] SCI 审稿结果serious modification，怎么办？已有2人参与

各位大侠们，
小弟本科僧大三，专业木材科学与技术，好不容易挣扎出篇论文，导师不给钱，只让让投个不收费的SCI，本来就没有经验，就胡乱投了个杂志，后来才知道是我们行业里面排第二的杂志。Holzforschung, 德国的一个期刊，International Journal of the Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Wood，影响因子1.748，大三类，小二类（小一类只有一种杂志），无审稿费（确实）无版面费（听导师说的，毕竟没录用，谁知又木有）。
审稿时间正好一个月，结果是serious modification.是要大修的意思吧，小弟第一次投sci,直到投稿前一点的概念都木的，只知道要网上提交、要写成英语的。

编辑的意思是：让大修，有两个审稿人，其中一人没有让通过。我的文章的情况是，自己一篇那个杂志上的文章也木有引用，（一是我们学校下不了那杂志的文章，一是根本木有经验（关于引用方面的，大家都懂得））然后编辑给我的附件是1.调整文中图的排列方式；2.给了8篇他们杂志近些年发表的一些和我的manuscript很接近的文章，意思是让我引用。

当时网站上要填至少一个审稿人，我填了个“算是在陶瓷”的professor,不知那杂志编辑有没有联系那professor.引用了那个professor的两篇文章。

两个reviewer的意见，一个基本上算是“好话”，提了些小问题，感觉还是比较好回答的，还说我插图的质量好（3维矢量图片），最后花了一大段说我的英语差。（好桑心，〒_〒）。但总体这审稿人感觉就是打酱油那种，给我的letter很短，1/3  A4质那么长。

另外一个第一句就说我的英语差（又桑心了，〒_〒）。但是后面确确实实都是说的我的文章中的问题。他说的文章并不novel(不同的角度来看不同的结果),然后说我的处理过程中有些他认为重要的东西没有体现，还有一堆一堆非常非常具体的问题，让人感觉这人绝对是这个领域的专家，其实我做的是木材干燥中建模，主要是解1维的parabolic partial differential equation.他对这里面的问题似乎清清楚楚。感觉不好对付。请问大家又木有什么经验可以传授传授的？

在回复editor的信中和回复reviewer的信中可以有一些客套的与文章木有神马关系问题吗？
比如我想问：为什么贵杂志在出版时要把矢量图转成tiff图呢，这样会严重影响图片打印的质量？

对那个第二个审稿人（因为不知是谁）可否询问跟着文章有些关系但和这篇paper无关的问题，并在回复中写下e-mail,然后“wish I can hear from you”.这个问题一是已经困惑我很久了，学校里面老师回答得都不好；二是感觉这样水平的reviewer差不多才能解决。（我想单独把这个问题拿出再写一篇呢）。。不知这些想法是否合理，请大家多多指点啊。。。

感激不尽，感激涕零

把editor的letter附下，大家给点参考意见。。。实在木有经验。。

Dear Mr. ****,

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript

Manuscript ID: HOLZ.*********
Title: "Mathematical Modeling of Moisture Transfer in Masson Pine Lumber Drying Process"
to  Holzforschung. Your manuscript has been reviewed and requires serious modifications prior to acceptance. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter. One of the reviewers is for rejection. My preliminary editorial requests are presented in the appendix "2013.0077-better-Figures--recent-quotations-05.06.13.doc".  Please read and follow the Editorial Guidelines (Instructions to the authors). No numbering of the chapters are needed. More recent quotations concerning drying are also requested. I will take the final decision after reading your essentially improved revision.
____________________________________________________________________________

I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. The revised paper needs to be submitted within 60 days from now.

To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holz  and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts Awaiting Revision".  Under "Actions", click on "Create a Revision".  Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

You may also click the below link to start the revision process (or continue the process if you have already started your revision) for your manuscript. If you use the below link you will not be required to login to ScholarOne Manuscripts.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holz?URL_MASK=6K3s72scfbc2h4cKN

When submitting your revised manuscript, you should also respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s). Please add

1. a point-by-point reply to the reviewers' comments,
2. and/or a rebuttal against each point that is being raised.

You will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) under File Upload - File Designation - Author's Response to Reviewer/Editor Critique.

Reply to the reviewer(s)' comments is mandatory; all revised manuscripts without reply will be sent back to the author.

You will be unable to make your revision on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript and save it on your computer.  Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using underlined or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload and submit it through your Author Center.
Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. You may delete these files or keep them.

Please pay attention to the order of your uploaded files: the first one is the reply to the reviewer(s)' comments, followed by the revised manuscript, and, if applicable, Tables and Figures, and Supplementary Material.

If you decide to keep the original files, these must be the last ones in the order of your uploaded files.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Holzforschung. I look forward to receiving your revision.

Kind regards,

Oskar Faix
Editor in Chief, Holzforschung - International Journal of the Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Wood

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
_____________________________________________________________
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The work has some positive aspects, though the novelty is not high. The authors present a wood drying model to describe the drying of pinus massionana. The model contains many simplifications, but nevertheless the derivation seems to be quite rigorous and the analysis of the results seems to be sound.

Page 7, line 56 - what does MDF have to do with this work?
Page 5, lines 8-28 - there is a need for a more complete description of the experimental design and the actual raw data acquisition and treatment. If that has been described in a previous publication, a reference should be provided.
Page 16 - Figure captions need improvement and clarity.

Figure quality is good, but I do not think all figures are needed. Perhaps, the figures should be merged for a more space-saving presentation.

Last but not least, the manuscript requires major language related overhaul. At some points, the text reads like it came from a larger document via disjointed copy-and-paste process. The recent literature is not quoted. Significant upgrading of editorial nature is a must.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The english is poor in numerous places through the text.

Models of timber drying have been developed and tested in the 1980’s and 1990’s by various researchers (see a sample of references below). The analysis shown in the paper does not add anything new to these previous analyses, thus the work is not novel. Indeed, this paper simplifies the previous published models significantly to the point that it does not include important physical phenomena that I believe are important, as outlined below:
1) The previous works show that, when modelling the drying of relatively permeable timbers such pines at temperatures above the boiling point of water, as is the case in the current paper, it may be important to include vapour transport by convective flow (driven by total pressure gradient). The authors of the current paper claim to model this, but to do this properly, an additional partial differential equation is required representing the air phase so that local total pressure can be calculated. The authors do not do this, and there is no justification for why this has been excluded. Instead, the authors appear to replace the total gas pressure in Darcys Law with the vapour pressure of water. I don’t understand how this simplification is justified.
2) In the previous models, the surface is usually modelled through the use of a flux expression and equilibrium data. The current authors appear to have fitted a correlation to their experimentally measured surface moisture content versus time data and used this as a boundary condition. I’m not clear how this model is now predictive. Is it possible that the good agreement shown in Figures 6 and 7 is only possible because the experimental moisture contents at the boundaries have been used directly in the simulations?
There are various points of confusion in the paper

1)Pg 6 Line 13 states that temperature gradients are small enough to be ignored (justification for not modelling the partial differential equation representing energy). But then, in section 3.2.1, the authors say temperature is a function of distance into the board and time, and present a graph of this in Figure 2.
2) The experimental procedure is unclear. I believe the authors have dried numerous samples (replicates) of timber. A given sample is sliced at a given time during drying in a destructive test to determine the moisture content profile over the sample. Numerous samples taken for slicing at different times during drying would provide a set of moisture content profiles during the drying process. Is this correct? Only one set of moisture content profiles are presented. Given the highly variable nature of timber, I wonder what would happen if another set of timber replicates were dried under the same drying conditions, and if this data were compared with the model predictions using the same model constants. Would similarly good agreement be achieved as shown in Figures 6 and 7 . Would the validation of the model be more convincing in this paper if a larger experimental data set were used?
3) It is unclear, but it appears that the liquid permeability used in the model has been fitted to previously measured data taken from greenwood (liquid permeability as a function of green moisture content and distance across the wood from the pith). During drying, the liquid permeability will change significantly at a given location as the moisture content reduces below the green moisture content and approaches fibre saturation during drying (pits aspirate and the liquid column in the wood stops being continuous). Is this effect included?

On a positive note, it is good to see simulations in which variability within a timber board (permeability etc) is taken into account, since many timber drying models I have seen assume the timber is homogeous.
Stanish, M.A., Schajer, G.S., Kayihan, F., 1986, A mathematical model of drying hygroscopic porous media, AIChE J, 32(8):1301-1311.
Pang, S., 1998, Relative importance of vapour diffusion and convective flow in modelling of softwood drying, Drying Technology, 16(1&2): 271-281.
Perré, P., Moser, M., Martin, M., 1993, Advances in transport phenomena during convective drying with superheated steam or moist air, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 38 (11):2725-2746.

回复此楼

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

qita

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

从未投过一个SCI期刊，却被期刊编辑邀请审稿，怎么回事已经有6人回复
投稿SCI，审稿意见求助已经有8人回复
能发工程类计算SCI，审稿周期快，较易发表的已经有5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
sci如何回复审稿意见，尤其是改格式的审稿意见？已经有8人回复
SCI审稿人希望增加内容，如不增加会被拒稿么？已经有22人回复
请教投SCI自选审稿人的问题已经有26人回复
目前一篇SCI论文正在审稿中，但现在发现了文章中的一些问题，怎么办已经有41人回复
sci期刊这样的审稿结果，大家给参谋参谋！已经有8人回复
依大家的经验看，这篇SCI的审稿结果会如何已经有20人回复
SCI审稿意见回来了，编辑给的moderate revision，麻烦大家帮分析一下，有BB 已经有28人回复
计算机类的哪些SCI期刊审稿快又容易中的？求推荐已经有4人回复
SCI文章的审稿意见，录用结果是只给注册投稿系统的邮箱发吗，谢谢！已经有14人回复
请教各位替sci期刊审稿过的人已经有12人回复
SCI审稿人不审稿，给出不匹配审稿意（研究内容与他冲突）已经有29人回复
问一个关于SCI审稿的问题已经有12人回复
从未投过SCI，却被一SCI期刊邀请审稿，怎么回事已经有20人回复
SCI审稿有审稿费吗已经有16人回复
国外SCI期刊审稿（Springer) 已经有4人回复
SCI杂志的审稿周期和投稿难易程度如何判断？已经有20人回复

1楼2013-06-13 00:05:02

[论文投稿] 好运来！ +3	jibeidaxue 2024-10-15	3/150	2024-10-18 07:46 by lizhengke06
[有机交流] 产物呈油状怎么处理呀 5+3	许嵩YYDS 2024-10-15	3/150	2024-10-18 06:14 by xiaomei1031
[硕博家园] 博士“读”后感。 +10	麻辣烫。 2024-10-11	17/850	2024-10-17 23:57 by 麻辣烫。
[硕博家园] 25级博士申请（仅限同济，汽车机械交通计算机）个人原因，勿喷 +4	亚历山大1 2024-10-17	8/400	2024-10-17 23:05 by 亚历山大1
[论文投稿] 畜牧专业，sci有哪些期刊 20+4	xingxing012 2024-10-17	5/250	2024-10-17 22:43 by nono2009
[论文投稿] 求教大家怎么增加自己特刊的影响力 +6	ch3ch3 2024-10-14	8/400	2024-10-17 22:03 by 猥琐De老男人
[硕博家园] 现邀请两位计算机相关专业外校教授参加博士毕业答辩(网络会议) +3	smallbox12 2024-10-17	3/150	2024-10-17 18:19 by aasahr
[论文投稿] 老师压着论文不让投咋办？ +12	nvizqxuf 2024-10-16	20/1000	2024-10-17 16:49 by jurkat.1640
[基金申请] 武大14名本科生获自然科学基金青年学生项目资助 +18	babu2015 2024-10-13	20/1000	2024-10-17 16:41 by LNP@mRNA
[基金申请] 西交院士候选人程海被基金委通报 +11	babu2015 2024-10-14	13/650	2024-10-17 14:09 by 我乘着风
[论文投稿] 中文核心期刊后台审核系统能看到一稿多投吗 10+8	putiji 2024-10-16	13/650	2024-10-17 12:27 by sjlnts
[论文投稿] 给编辑部发原稿，发不出去 10+3	uuuur555 2024-10-15	9/450	2024-10-17 10:31 by 北京莱茵润色
[论文投稿] 跪求各位虫友提供投稿帮助❥(^_-) 4+5	张秋慈 2024-10-11	5/250	2024-10-16 22:20 by 2008202066
[论文投稿] 投AEM的文章被拒，编辑建议转投 15+3	程木冉@ 2024-10-14	6/300	2024-10-16 14:23 by 北京莱茵润色
[基金申请] 中国青年女科学家奖得主，优青，青拔，西北大学刘建妮被基金委查处 +10	babu2015 2024-10-14	13/650	2024-10-16 11:06 by gwjxiaolang
[论文投稿] 化工期刊AIChE J一般多久会送审啊 +5	谢泼德医生 2024-10-11	11/550	2024-10-16 10:58 by JNA800389
[论文投稿] 论文来源期刊证明 5+6	Tonightfc 2024-10-12	10/500	2024-10-15 17:44 by Tonightfc
[论文投稿] 2024.10.12 TIMC reject +4	香瓜木香 2024-10-14	6/300	2024-10-15 16:18 by yuanjijoy
[硕博家园] 博士选择国内大牛导师还是gap选择国外导师 +5	ronghao233 2024-10-14	5/250	2024-10-15 11:36 by ILKM
[教师之家] 。。。。。。。。。 (金币-5) +19	lice_1987 2024-10-14	33/1650	2024-10-14 17:54 by lice_1987

24小时热门版块排行榜

[求助] SCI 审稿结果serious modification，怎么办？已有2人参与

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖