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

aming_1230

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2038.6
帖子: 220
在线: 173.5小时
虫号: 2147665

[交流] critical reviews in solid state and materials sciences 据稿重投

本人九月底在critical reviews in solid state and materials sciences投稿一篇仿生的综述，在此之前即2012年已经有一篇类似的文章发表了"biomimicry via electrospinning"，现在编辑部回信直接据稿，说文章不符合他们的期刊要求，让我另选其他期刊，但是其中一个审稿人给了不少修改意见并说修改可用。说实在的，我投稿的文章确实存在严重不足，但是经过我近一个月的修改，个人认为已经是超越了原来那一稿的，也在一定程度上做到了上述审稿人的一些修改意见，并且修改后的稿件对biomimicry via electrospinning是一种补充，更是一种进步，请问我还能重新投稿吗？如果这样，该怎么做？谢谢各位大神的回复。
注：该期刊在同类期刊排名较好，一年只有四期，大概不到一百篇文章吧。
下面是具体的回复信息：
13-Nov-2013
Dear Mr Ke:
I regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences. 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 Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
Sincerely,
Professor Sigmund
Editor in Chief, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences
solidstateandmaterials@gmail.com

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
In this article, the author presented an overview of various biomimetic structure fabricated by electrospinning technique. The article did cover a wide range of bio-inspired structures. However, the manuscript does not have a coherent storyline and lacks in-depth discussion in each topic picked. Thus it is recommended that the article should be revised before accepted.
Some concerns/suggestions of the article are as follows:
In the presentation of some biomimetic structures, the pick of the artificial surface is arbitrary while the discussion is missing. Example:
Page 5, Figure 5c: from the pick of the SEM image I didn’t see anything that resemble the targeted hierarchical feather surface. Also in this section the author did not discuss anything about the artificial surface, i.e. property, mechanism except for the synthesis.
Page 5, line 33: from the description of the original dissertation as presented by Dr. Ma, it is kinds of arbitrary to assert that the co—polymer fiber structure resembles the structure on butterfly wings, or at least as presented in figure 6.
Page 6, figure 7c vs figure 7d and figure 7e: comparing the nature and artificial surfaces, it is kinds of dubious that they can be claimed similar. Also the discussion is not enough.
Page 7, linge 5: the author just wrote “They found the structure of the prepared fibers were similar to that of the spider silk.” There is no evidence to prove this simple statement, nor any discussion about the implication and applications of this finding.
This is not a general discussion or conclusion section at the end of this paper, which makes the end of this article seemingly arbitrary.
In general, the author might consider present the information more logically and more in-depth, with contribution from the knowledge of the author himself rather than just describing what was done by others.
Another major problem with the paper is the reproduction permission of the figures. The author just get random figures from different literatures and put them together without getting permissions. Reproduction permission needs to be obtained (possibly from the publisher) and state clearly at the end of each figure to prevent potential plagiarism problems.
For a review article as this is, 41 references are far from enough. This goes back to the first point, that the author could get a more systematic view of the topics by reading more papers than just commenting on one paper in each specific topic.
Page 3, line 28: the author mentioned about figure 3e, but where is it?
Page 4, line 12: the author mentioned that “the diameter of setae rangs (ranges) from 3mm down to several hundred nanometres (nanometers) and most are roughly 50 micron…” This is over 4 orders of magnitude difference. Can the author assure that the setae talked about is one type of setae or there are actually several different bio-structures on water strider legs? It would be kinds of astonishing that a single type of structure can have such wide range of size distribution.
The author needs to work more on the language and spelling (e.g. see previous point). If possible, work with a native speaker to make the illustration clearer.
In page 6, line 10-14, why there is a sudden change in the line spacing?

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The writing in this paper needs substantial work. A successful review paper's primary goal is to clearly explain the work of others and to tie the research together. The paper does not clearly do this. It also appears incomplete as there are no concluding remarks.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

自荐读博已经有9人回复
投稿Elsevier的杂志（返修），总是在选择OA和subscription界面被踢皮球已经有8人回复
自然科学基金委宣布启动申请书“瘦身提质”行动已经有4人回复
求个博导看看已经有18人回复

» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

1楼 2013-11-14 10:16:36

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

aming_1230

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2038.6
帖子: 220
在线: 173.5小时
虫号: 2147665

引用回帖:

36楼: Originally posted by 2011111111 at 2013-11-14 11:52:15
从审稿意见上看文章还是存在不少问题的，包括楼主的态度，对文章改完后都没有仔细的读上即便，以至于各种错误的存在。当然，致命的上还是在于文章的一个总体的思路上，文章思路不清晰，没有能够说清楚当前的研究现状 ...

在被拒之前，我一经将稿件由重新修改了一下，补充了很多内容，在一些in depth讨论上也做了一些工作，但是仍然有不足，按你说的我还有机会重投吗？因为我很想投稿这家期刊，之前该期刊上收录的论文进行对比，至少是一种进步