24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

liguan525

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 9 (幼儿园)
金币: 915.2
帖子: 204
在线: 72.3小时
虫号: 866542

[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

职称评审没过，求安慰已经有49人回复
26申博自荐已经有3人回复
A期刊撤稿已经有4人回复
垃圾破二本职称评审标准已经有17人回复
投稿Elsevier的Neoplasia杂志，到最后选publishing options时页面空白，不能完成投稿已经有22人回复
EST投稿状态问题已经有7人回复
毕业后当辅导员了，天天各种学生超烦已经有4人回复
三无产品还有机会吗已经有6人回复

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

1楼 2013-10-21 14:13:05

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

bachier

金虫 (职业作家)

应助: 294 (大学生)
贵宾: 0.08
金币: 834.8
帖子: 4719
在线: 1179.6小时
虫号: 394495

★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖

被拒的：
Reviewer: 1
>
>Recommendation: Publish elsewhere.
>
>Comments:
>This paper describes the formation of Au-Ag bimetallic nanorods using decahedral Au nanocrystals as the templates. A variety of such bimetallic nanorods have been synthesized. Even though some of these heterostructures have been reported before, this work adds more variety to the products formed. From reading the experimental procedure, it is unclear if the gold seeds contain a silver coating. The experimental section is not well-written and is somewhat confusing. It is not clear the volumes of AgNO3 used for all the samples. Additional comments are given below.
>1. Please check Tsuji’s work on growth of the bimetallic heterostructures. His papers should be cited.
>2. Ref. 3: One author name is incorrectly spelled. Ref. 5: Authors should be corrected to “Chen, Y.-H.; Hung, H.-H.; Huang, M. H.” Journal abbreviation should be used for Coordination Chemistry Reviews. Change Angew. Chem. to Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Ref. 10a: 48 should not be in bold text. Ref. 10-13: No dot after the reference number. These examples show that the reference section should be checked again carefully.
>3. Please rewrite the following sentence: “However, most reports of heterogeneous growth are noble metal and other nonnoble substances …” This sentence is not so easy to understand.
>4. Check spelling for PVP. Change decahedrons to decahedra. What was the oil heating temperature in the preparation of the gold seed particles? No need to write “this method is not published”.
>5. Experimental Section: There should be a space between a number and its unit.
>6. The description for making nanobottles is not clear. State volume and concentration of HAuCl4 solution used.
>7. For making nanonails, state 70 microliters of propane diamine was added.
>8. Why AgNO3 was added in the synthesis of Au decahedra and nanorods? Has silver incorporated into the resulting Au particles? Any EDS data to support the composition of the resulting Au particles?
>9. Figure 4B: “far to Au tip” is incorrect. It can be changed to “at the other end of the nanorod”. Fix the same problem in Figure S1.
>10. Figure S17: When NH3 is added, Ag(NH3)2+ should form, so the solution becomes clear. See, for example, J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 17768, for relevant discussion. This role of NH3 should be discussed, instead of saying that it acts as a reducing ability modifier.
>11. Since amounts of AgNO3 added for making the bimetallic nanorods of different lengths are different, how do we know it is the growth rate causing the one-side or two-side growth? What is the evidence of slower or faster rate of growth, except by comparing the lengths of the nanorod products?
>12. There is no evidence to suggest preferential adsorption of PDDA on {110} and {100} facets. It is the decahedra which serve as templates to guide the formation of penta-twinned nanorod structure. Please remove this statement.
>13. How come the figures in the Supporting Information are not arranged according to the order they are discussed in the main text? For example, S17 is discussed before S9 and S11.
>
>In summary, this paper only presents the synthetic results but lack a deeper investigation of the growth rate and ammonia effect. There are also extensive corrections to make. This paper is not recommended for publication in JACS in its present form.
>
>
>Additional Questions:
>Significance: Moderate (not suitable for JACS)
>
>Novelty: High (suitable for JACS)
>
>Broad interest: High (suitable for JACS)
>
>Scholarly presentation: Moderate (not suitable for JACS)
>
>Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: In Part
>
>Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: In Part
>
>
>Reviewer: 2
>
>Recommendation: Publish in JACS after minor revisions.
>
>Comments:
>The authors studied an asymmetric growth of heterometallic nanorods by precise control of growth kinetics. Their results are excellent, which provide good information to induce asymmetry from the symmetric morphology. This manuscript is suitable for the publication after the adjustment of subtle things.
>
>1) In the synthesis, Figure 2 is better to be located in Supporting Information, because the structures were already reported in other literatures, and not brand-new. The authors claimed that the synthesis of decahedrons was an unpublished result, but the synthetic procedure must be clear for giving enough information to the others. Therefore, the synthetic conditions of the seeds and the products should be written in detail (in Supporting Information). What is the reaction temperature for the decahedron synthesis? Did'n the researcher add more Ag precursor solutions into the reaction mixture for bimetallic Ag-Au growth? Please write clearly and in detail for the synthetic procedures.
>
>2) In the left column of page 2, line 48-52, the authors described selective absorption of PDDA on {110} and {100}, favoring the longitudinal growth. However, PDDA also has a significant role in the synthesis of Au decahedral seeds, which have only {111} surfaces. Apparently, PDDA seems to stabilize {111} as well as {100} and {110}, but its preference may be altered by the different reaction conditions. Can the authors clearly describe this aspect in the manuscript? Perhaps it needs some additional experiments.
>
>Additional Questions:
>Significance: Highest (top 5%, suitable for JACS)
>
>Novelty: Highest (top 5%, suitable for JACS)
>
>Broad interest: Highest (top 5%, suitable for JACS)
>
>Scholarly presentation: High (suitable for JACS)
>
>Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: In Part
>
>Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes