СµÜ֮ǰдÁËÎÄÕÂ[A](´¦ÀíÁËcase 1)·¢±íÁË, ÏÖÔÚдÁ˺óÐøÎÄÕÂ[C](´¦ÀíÁËcase 2)ÔÙ´ÎͶµ½Õâ¸öÔÓÖ¾±»¾ÜÁË. ֮ǰ»¹Ð´¹ýÎÄÕÂ[B]·¢±íÔÚÁíÒ»¸öÔÓÖ¾ÉÏ,¿¼ÂǵÄÎÊÌâ²»Ò»Ñù,µ«Á½ÖÖÇéÐÎÒ»Æð¶¼´¦ÀíÁË.
Éó¸åÒâ¼ûÈçÏÂ:
In this pape, *** are considered. More precisely, the authors determine ***(with case 2).
In their previous paper [A], the authors considered the same(or similar) problems for ***(with case 1). Proofs in the paper under review are similar to that of [A] (a lot of tedious straightforward computations), not conceptial, the results are paralell to that in [A]. Also the authors do not explain why they need to treat the * in different cases, instead of all * like in [B].
The paper is also too lengthy (2* pages) considering the importance of the results.
So at the present stage of the paper, I cannot recommend the paper for publication in ***.
±à¼»Ø¸´µÄ¾Ý¸åÐÅÈçÏÂ:
Dear XXX:
I regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in ****. For your information I attach the reviewer comments at the bottom of this email. I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so.
Thank you for considering ****. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
Sincerely,
****
Associate Editor, *****
***@***.***.edu
Çë¸÷λ´óÏÀ¿´¿´, ÌØ±ðÊÇÓÐÕâÑù¾ÑéµÄ³æÓÑ, ²»ÖªµÀÕâÑùµÄÉó¸åÒâ¼ûÊÇ·ñ¿ÉÒÔÐÞ¸ÄÖØÍ¶ÄØ(¿ÉÒÔ½ÚÊ¡Éó¸åʱ¼ä)? ÄܽÓÊܵĿÉÄÜÐÔ´óÂð? »¹ÊǸÄͶÆäËûÄØ(ÓÖµÃÖØÐÂÉó¸å)? |