| 查看: 2279 | 回复: 25 | |||
| 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]
论文revise and resubit 修后回复意见了，结果还是这个状态。
|
|||
|
论文revise and resubit 修后回复意见了，结果还是这个状态。 意见不多，主要是语法问题！这个是IEEE现在的审稿状态都只有这个状态吗？我这个修改了还会不会重新审，是直接给结论吗？ 附上意见： Editor's Comments: Editor Editor Comments for Author: Please direct careful and detailed attention to English grammar. Reviewers' Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Paper is OK but careful English editing is necessary. Caption of Figure 2 still inappropriate. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author (There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.) Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author This paper presents studies on the thickness of glaze icing on conductors in overhead transmission lines by conducting both extensive observations and mechanical model-based analysis. While the proposed mechanical model is nothing more than a fundamental statics of cables, the paper provides important field data as well as a new method for calculating the icing thickness, and therefore merits publication. The manuscript has been revised to some extent, but additional amendments related with the following comments are still needed for the paper’s clarity and quality. 1) Extensive English editing is more carefully conducted. 2) In Fig. 3, ‘gamma’ must be replaced by the load per unit length q0, and the tension at the tower B should be also indicated, in order to make the figure more consistent with a figure used in the field of Mechanics. 3) In Fig. 4, the point D’ must be located at the place of X’. (AD’BE’ should be quadrangular.) 4) In Eq. (10), h’=h cos(eta) should be included, and ‘gamma’v in the forth equation is unnecessary. 5) It is better to insert ‘between the tower A and the point O’’ in the explanation of Sa’: conductor length between the tower A and the point O’ in the AD’BE’ plane. The same comment should be given for the explanation of the second term of Eq. (13) in the text. 6) All the parameters except ‘n’ in TABLE II are already defined and therefore it is not necessary to explain just after showing the table.. Reviewer: 4 Comments to the Author The authors replied my comments on the first submsission. I do not have more comments on the paper. |
回复此楼» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
guowu» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有19人回复
-
国社科又开始会评了，不知道这次命运如何
已经有9人回复
-
能否申诉？
已经有5人回复
-
为什么到现在没收到通知？
已经有5人回复
-
有没有仍没收到信息的
已经有8人回复
-
面上意见出来了
已经有18人回复
-
找导师
已经有7人回复
-
29号明天会评吗
已经有3人回复
-
麻烦专家们看看评委们的意见（F口面上）
已经有11人回复
-
我就是申请一个面上项目而已，这评审意见是按照杰青的条件评的吧？
已经有11人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- IEEE trans. 的revise and resubmitt的文章接收率高吗？
已经有10人回复
- IEEE Sensors Journal投稿Reject (revise and resubmit)
已经有47人回复
- IEEE Trans“revise and resubmit”希望还大吗？
已经有13人回复
- 论文修改第二次了，也没有写大修还是小修，都是revise，第二次修改都半个月还没消息
已经有12人回复
- Manuscript Revise and Re-Review，这样有戏吗
已经有5人回复
- [求助] sci论文revise, 其中一个拒稿的审稿人意见该如何回复？
已经有14人回复
- 关于Revise and Resubmit as New
已经有6人回复
- revise your manuscript using a word processing program ?
已经有18人回复
- 请问 Reject (revise and resubmit) 后重投还有希望吗？
已经有8人回复
- 状态终于又改变了--结果已出，revise了
已经有63人回复
都是语言和格式问题，小事情。楼主便不必担心，好好修改便是。
25楼2013-11-19 08:21:52
简单回复
2013-11-18 10:18
回复
xiangze(金币+1): 谢谢参与
， [ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
2013-11-18 10:24
回复
， [ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
投票:
30