| 查看: 9897 | 回复: 128 | |||
| 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 | |||
[交流]
每次写审稿意见都发愁，有没有虫友愿意分享自己的SCI论文审稿意见？
|
|||
| 经常要给一些英文论文写审稿意见，农学，作物科学相关的，或者生物类的，希望虫友们友情分享一下自己的审稿意见，给我参考一下吧，英文的哦，非常感谢！ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
40+中年人失业后，还能找到好工作吗？
已经有15人回复
-
二审4个多月了还是Awaiting Reviewer Scores
已经有5人回复
-
申请科研项目纯靠实力能成功吗？
已经有12人回复
-
用NBS溴化时溶剂除了CCl4外还有什么
已经有6人回复
-
极限拉扯，如何抉择
已经有15人回复
-
OpenAI又攻克数学难题了，离AI做有机合成还有多远？
已经有13人回复
-
课题组会帮你通过考核么？
已经有7人回复
-
招收博士生一名
已经有3人回复
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
我的给你分享一下： 接受的： Reviewer #1: authors reported a seed-mediated growth of Pt nanoparticles with tunable shapes and sizes using organometallic precusor. Although various growth mechanisms on the morphology control of Pt nanoparticles have been reported previously, especially from Dr. Younan Xia and Dr. Hong Yang's groups, respectively, the proposed competetive growth between <111> and <100> facets discussed with respect to the precursor concentration and deposition surface area was rather interesting. Authors also conducted the electrochemical measurements on ethanol oxidation fuel cell anodic reaction. However, the comparison with commerical (ETEK) catalyst was not presented, even it had been mentioned in the experimental section. A few more comments: 1. Author need to polish the introduction and/or conclusion parts to show the big picture of the work, and more important, the different from previous results. 2. several details need to been taken care of. For example, ETEK data mentioned above; methanol concetrantion was 0.5 M in the experimental part, but 0.1 M in the discussion part; reference potential sometime indicated as Ag/AgCl, sometimes as SCE. 3. one more suggestion, author shouldn't present the simulated figures in the top row of scheme 1: unless there was direct support from TEM, it's too obscue to conclude the exact stuctures, especially for the multipods. Reviewer #2: In this manuscript the authors employed a seed-mediated solvothermal procedure for the preparation of platinum nanoparticles. They adjusted several reaction parameters including the platinum precursor to seed molar ratio (PPS), the precursor addition rate and the seed size, and investigated their effects on the final product. They were able to give a reasonable explanation on the experimental results based on reaction thermodynamics and kinetics. They also tried to understand the growth process using a semi-quantified number of platinum precursor concentration to nanoparticle surface area ratio (c/s). Although the innovative insights of this manuscript are just moderate as most of their observations and arguments have been proposed in previous publications, overall I think it is a decent research article as the subject itself can bring a wide scientific interest to readers. Their systematic study and substantial data can potentially provide some useful clues in the exploration of new platinum nanomaterials. I would like to recommend it for publication in the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science after a major revision and the following questions being addressed. 1. The authors suggested an anisotropic growth mechanism for the formation of branched platinum nanoparticles when the PPS value was high. However this mechanism is more often applied in understanding anisotropic growth of materials with dramatic anisotropy in different facets, such as oxides and selenides. It is known that additional nucleation by platinum precursor itself can occur when PPS is rather high (Nano Res. 2009, 2, 406-415), and branched nanostructures can form via oriented attachment among primary nanoparticles (Adv. Mater. 2009, 21, 1013-1020). It is not very convincing to exclude this possible mechanism without any experimental evidence. More experiments are suggested to justify their argument. For example, TEM study of the products collected after a short reaction time can tell whether there is additional nucleation and the products collected after different reaction time can provide a direct evidence of the growth process. A careful HR-TEM observation of the branched platinum nanoparticles will also be helpful in distinguishing these two mechanisms, as the oriented attachment can not avoid formation of twin planes while an anisotropic growth usually leads to single crystalline structures (ACS Nano 2010, 4, 1501-1510; J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 4590-4591). 2. The definition of PPS (the molar ratio of Pt(acac)2/seed) is a little bit amphibolous to readers. It will be helpful if the authors can make a more clear definition. Do the moles of seed stand for the quantity of platinum nanoparticles or platinum metal? How did the authors determine the moles of platinum nanoparticles in the experiments if the molar number stands for the first one? 3. The PPS numbers in Figure 3, 5 and 6 and their captions should be N rather than 1:N based on their definition. 4. I am confused with the concentration of methanol in their electrochemical tests. They mentioned 0.5 M in the "Materials and methods" part while 0.1 M in Figure 5. The authors should have a double check with this number. 5. Labeling 1a and 1b should be exchanged in the caption of Figure 6 from context. 6. The authors should cite proper references to support their arguments. For example, reference [84] on page 13 has nothing with methanol oxidation reaction thus cannot support their sentences "In all cases, the voltammetric features are consistent with previous literature [84], .". References are needed to support their argument on page 11, "Once introducing excess precursor, the growth along <111> faces is highly accelerated, generating branched NPs". 7. Wording of the manuscript needs further polishing. There are quite a few misuses of words and grammar in the text. |
106楼2013-10-21 20:55:35
4楼2013-10-21 14:24:54
12楼2013-10-21 14:48:58