24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

本帖产生 1 个 SEPI ，点击这里进行查看

zn328754293

金虫 (著名写手)

SEPI: 1
应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 11359.4
红花: 3
帖子: 1537
在线: 1007.1小时
虫号: 1950295
注册: 2012-08-22
专业: 配位化学

[交流] 论文前几天接受了(包含据稿催稿小修邮件) 回报小木虫,说说经历,给新手一点参考已有21人参与

本人第一次投文章, 以前也没投过中文的, 压根就不知道投稿啥情况, 这次直接写了篇英文的, 给老师看, 老师一票否决, 没啥新意, 如果我要投, 不要挂他名字.
所以, 我准备了准备, 就投稿了. 第一次投Elsevier上的一个2.0多的刊物, 三个审稿人, 一个说不适合此刊, 另一个说语法拼写错误太多, 好多概念没写清, 提了好多改的, 第三个也是觉得没啥新意, 所以编辑据稿.
很是郁闷, 但是还是按照审稿人的要求, 把拼写错误语法错误改了改, 一些专业术语也改了. 附上邮件:
Ms. Ref. No.: ####
Title: #####
#####

Dear Mr. ####,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

#####
Receiving Editorial Office
$$$$$$

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: #####

The present study dealing with trace amounts of aqueous copper(II) chloride complexes in hypersaline solutions has been carried out in a sophisticated and careful manner. However, the content of this study is far too specific for the general inorganic chemistry readership of ####. It is therefore suggested that this study is submitted to the ##### ["which offers a forum for research on the physical chemistry of liquid solutions"] or to a journal with a strong physical-chemical focus.

Minor points, which the authors should consider before they submit their study again, are:

(1) line 32 (and elsewhere): ... electrolysis anolyte -- I believe it should read "analyte"
(2) line 64: ... isopiestic experimental data -- this should read "isosbestic"
(3) The English needs to be improved and clarified at many instances, e.g.,
(a) line 21 & 22: ... "are to be preferred, except log K2" ... -- I assume that this should read
... are to be preferred over published ones, except for log K2 ...

(b) lines 223 & 224: ... "is in good agreement with this derived in this study ..." -- It should read
... is in good agreement with the one derived in this study
(c) line 252: ... "which means that experimental data process is reasonable only using four species." -- I assume that it should read
... which means that processing of the experimental data is reasonable using four species only.

Reviewer #2: The paper describes the complexation of Cu(II) by chloride ions in high concentrations and compares the new results with those previously published.

The language is poor. A few examples:
Singular/plural:
line 63: .these electrolytes (not clear which ones) is more benign (what does it scientifically mean?) to..
line 150: .The approach used in this study are .
Verbs.
Line 62:..-. and determined (determine) .
line 100: .the details were (are) described.
line 127: ....the results are showed (shown)..
line 139: .The formation constants..were calculated.
Strange sentences.
line 46-47: ..there was no present of CuCl4., but was this with.
line 123: ..to the refinement (of the) formation constants..
line 170: . by Brugger et al., that assigning (who assigned).
line 236: ..Based on those above (?) our results should be to be preferred (I cannot agree)
line 251: . show that there is a few CuCl4 species (that CuCl4 is a minor species)

In addition there are several chemical problems, which are not clear:
Line 71: Why is the concentration of Cu(II) only approximate?
Line 88:. the molar absorptivity coefficient
Line126:.the absorbance matrix was reduced to restrict it to the .. Could you give the precise range of wavelengths, which were used for the calculation .
Line 128: Where from comes the decision to use 0.02 absorbance units as "tolerance". I know papers, in which the standard deviation in absorbance units is around 0.001, in some cases even 0.0005 units. In fact looking at fig.2 one has the impression that a fifth eigenvector would improve the fitting on going from 0.012 to 0.008 "tolerance" (Whatever it means) units. Have the author checked whether the inclusion of a fifth component is statistically significant or not?
Line 180 and following: In eq 7, K is used as the total number of wavelengths (by the way how many were used?), whereas in the rest of the paper it means equilibrium constants.
Please check that everywhere the right words are used: epsilons are the molar absorptivity coefficients. The authors use molar extinction coefficients or molar absorbance (also in fig.4), which is not correct.
Line 202:The equilibrium constants are defined in eq.4 as Kn (n=0,1,2), but here in the discussion and in Table 2 one finds Kn(n=1,2,3) How comes?
The fact that log K2 could not be determined accurately can have different reasons: 1) The corresponding species is present in low concentrations. 2) There is a strong correlation between the parameters, especially between the epsilon value and the stability constant of the corresponding species. 3) The model used to fit the data is wrong. Does the program used for the fitting procedure separate linear (epsilon) and non-linear parameters (k values)? Does the program give a correlation matrix form which one could see how strong correlations are?
Line 223: in the discussion of log K1 it is stated that the value determined in this paper is comparable to the values of several authors, but not with that of Bjerrum, differing by 0.25 log units. How about the value of Khan et al., which differs by 0.36 units?
Fig.4: The molar absorptivity coefficients (y-axis) of the fig are too small and should be about a 1000 time larger.

With all this, the paper cannot be reccomanded for publication.

Reviewer #3: The authors report stability constants for the copper(II) complexes of chloride ions. Huge number of similar data are available in the literature and various databases, some of them are cited in the manuscript, too. The subject of the manuscript fits well ####, but the amount of new scientific findings does not support publication. The authors are right that there are big differences in the literature data, but there is no sufficient experimental proof for the highest accuracy and reliability of the present speciation. Chloride concentration was changing in a very wide range and theoretical calculations were used to obtain thermodynamic constants. The applicability of these calculations in concentrated samples is questionable.
The use of constant ionic strength (e.g. perchlorate + chloride or nitrate + chloride samples) can be more reliable for given conditions. The UV absorption of complexes was only measured but d-d transition in the visible range must also be affected by complexation.

尽管据稿, 但是还是从中学了好多, 觉得这些审稿人太厉害了, 一下就看中要害. 所以认真改了.

第二次就按照第一审稿人的要求, 投到他推荐的期刊上, 是springer上的, 1.1的样子, 无所谓了, 第一次嘛, 只要是SCi咱就觉得OK了.
认真修改了, 唯一的就是真正体会到改参考文献格式的痛苦了, 我的文章引了50篇的文献, 改的那叫个痛苦啊.
不说了, 都是泪, 在6月29号提交了论文, 先前也在小木虫上看了这个期刊, 貌似投稿的人很少, 而且仅存的搜索结果显示, 这个期刊很慢, 很拖拉, 但是没办法, 没有更好的可以投, 所以就走着看吧.
没想到, 真是这样, 自从投了稿以后, 当天就变为Editor Assignment Pending. 然后就没动静了, 一直到9月, 还是没动静. 当时我就想, 太慢了啊, 做了这么多年的研究, 一直没信心, 破罐子破摔吧, 所以就想着催一下吧, 如果拒了, 就翻译成中文, 再投. 所以9月十号, 就写了一封催稿信:

Dear ****,

I'm sorry to disturb you.

My manuscript ID is ****.

I have submitted a manuscript to the #### on 29 June, 2013. However, the manuscript current status is still Editor Assignment Pending now. The status didn't update since.

Any question about this manuscript?
Please let me know.

Yours,
****
虽然说人家效率低, 但是态度还是蛮好的, 第二天我的论文状态就变为Under Review了, 然后人家还回了一封邮件, 说已经弄了, 你要等编辑的结果巴拉巴拉的....
Dear ****,

I would like to bring to your kind notice that your manuscript is currently with the experts for their review.

However, please be assured that you will be duly notified of the decision as soon as it has been made by the editor.

Many thanks.

Best regards,
*****
然后我就等吧, 没想到一周之内(9月17号)就看到2 评论结果已经回来了, 当时就想, 完了, 这不是据稿的节奏么, 算了, 准备改投吧.

人生总是处处充满惊喜.... 时间是9月25号, 地点北京颐和园里的厕所蹲大号, 无聊, 用手机上网, 突然, 看到邮箱有封邮件Decision on your Manuscript #####当时心都提到嗓子眼儿了, 但是还是打开了, 然后尽管在那闭塞的空间, 我也感到神清气爽…..‏
Dear ****:

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "****", which you submitted to Journal of ***.

It is apparent from the reports shown below that your manuscript could be accepted for publication after you have considered incorporating the minor revisions proposed. There are two minor style issues with your manuscript and I have noted them in a brief document (Editor's comments) that you can download.

When preparing your revised manuscript, please also submit a list of responses to the comments that should be uploaded as a file in addition to your revised manuscript.

PLEASE NOTE: YOUR REVISED VERSION CANNOT BE SUBMITTED IN .PS OR .PDF. IN THE EVENT THAT YOUR REVISED VERSION IS ACCEPTED, YOUR PAPER CAN BE SENT TO PRODUCTION WITHOUT DELAY ONLY IF WE HAVE THE SOURCE FILES ON HAND. Submissions without source files will be returned prior to final acceptance.

In order to submit your revised manuscript electronically, please access the following web site:

######

Your username is: *****
Your password is: ******

Click "Author Login" to submit your revision.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best regards,

*****

*****
Editor-in-Chief
******

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the 'View Attachments' link in the Action column.

*****

Reviewer #1: The results concerning the thermodynamic properties of aqueous copper complexes in hydrometallurgical extraction are of high practical value and have been justified by two independent methods. The work is interesting, well organized and contains the proper References. The paper may be published in its present form but it needs minor revision as some fragments are not absolutely clear or need some corrections. Namely:
Line 60: because of?
Line 114: to interpret?
Line 154, 156, 160, 168; the an or ån parameter?
Line 201: Eqn. 7 or rather Eqn. 8?
Lines 247 and 255: why is the temperature of the solutions mentioned only in the Conclusions and not in the Experimental?
Line 248: between 0 and 6m?
Line 260: suitable? why "to suitable"?

Reviewer #3: The paper deals with an important research point. The following comments aught to improve it
1) few spelling and grammatic errors need to be corrected . Some sentences specially in the discussion section need to be rephrased to improve readability.
2) Reference list contain only 4 references 2010 and newer. Updata your reference list.
3) I cannot understand how the convolution of the spectra of the individual species have been made? elaborate and give reference.

你妹啊, 小修啊, 真的, 是Minor Revision. 而且看了下问题, 全是格式啊, 拼写啊, 语法啊, 没有要加实验或者对数据处理怀疑的, 明显的, 第二个审稿人对我的工作很感兴趣, 编辑也提出了格式问题, 我可以直接下载, 这里就不列了.

然后, 10月4号提交修改稿, 直到10月12号论文接受. 应该没有送外审, 因为当天上午我查的时候还是Editor Assignment Pending, 当天晚上就Accepted.
不容易, 博士的第一篇sci, 也算是毕业有望了吧, 当天也告诉了女友, 她也很为我高兴. 现在正在准备第二篇, 希望顺利.
这就是我的投稿经历, 这篇杂志的效率终究还是可以的, 从投稿到接受, 也就3个月的样子. 可能是幸运吧, 也说不定.
希望大家都顺利.

[ Last edited by zn328754293 on 2013-10-17 at 11:09 ]

回复此楼