24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4540)
>虫友互识 (516)
>文献求助 (439)
>休闲灌水 (396)
>导师招生 (388)
>考博 (135)
>硕博家园 (131)
>博后之家 (102)
>基金申请 (101)
>招聘信息布告栏 (100)
>论文投稿 (94)
>考研 (85)
>教师之家 (65)
>找工作 (48)
>公派出国 (48)
>绿色求助(高悬赏) (46)

返回列表

本帖产生 1 个 PC-EPI ，点击这里进行查看

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

MDeFF2012

新虫 (小有名气)

PC-EPI: 1
应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 21.1
帖子: 238
在线: 221.9小时
虫号: 2146432

[交流] JAP小修，把具体意见贴出来，继续求祝福~~

JAP的二审意见回来了，小修，把具体意见贴出来，求祝福~~
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
RECOMMENDATION: Minor Revision
Sufficient New Physics in an Applied Area: Yes
Appropriate Length: Yes
Well Organized and Clearly Written: Yes
Good Title: Yes
Good Abstract: Yes
Clear Figures: Yes
Adequate References: Yes
TECHNICAL QUALITY RATING: Good
PRESENTATION RATING: Good

Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author):

This revision is a substantial improvement over the previous submission. A few minor corrections will improve the quality of the paper overall. As I see it, the new data in the paper mainly consists of xxx. This should be stated more clearly in the abstract and conclusions. Some the rest of the data already exists in the literature. Along the same lines, the authors still need to make a more careful review of previous work xxx. For example, how did the authors choose their specific parameters? From looking at the figures, it would appear that the parameters from Ref. 26 might be superior. This should be explained in the text. In addition, a statement as to what was lacking in previous work like Ref. 26 would be helpful.

In addition, the current Fig. 5 is a bit confusing. The inner figure is much to small to be if use.

回复此楼