| 查看: 7553 | 回复: 36 | |||
| 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 | |||
[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» 猜你喜欢
生物学学硕求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
上海电力大学材料防护与新材料重点实验室招收调剂研究生（材料、化学、电化学，环境）
已经有4人回复
-
材料学求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
303求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿武理085500机械专业总分300求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
考研调剂
已经有4人回复
-
281求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
0805 316求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
085601求调剂总分293英一数二
已经有3人回复
-
08工学调剂
已经有17人回复
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
14楼2013-06-13 11:54:00
jwucn
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 690 (博士)
- 金币: 19810.5
- 红花: 23
- 帖子: 16486
- 在线: 251.9小时
- 虫号: 183097
- 注册: 2006-02-12
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
2楼2013-06-13 01:22:12
changh
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 318 (大学生)
- 金币: 12900.7
- 散金: 888
- 红花: 33
- 帖子: 9537
- 在线: 436.5小时
- 虫号: 796972
- 注册: 2009-06-20
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 构造地质学与活动构造
3楼2013-06-13 05:29:47
啸天犬
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 2171 (讲师)
- 金币: 9715.1
- 红花: 45
- 帖子: 3962
- 在线: 302.2小时
- 虫号: 1362468
- 注册: 2011-08-07
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 水文地质学(含地热地质学)
4楼2013-06-13 07:51:11
