| 查看: 2872 | 回复: 9 | |||
| 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 | |||
寻找光阴新虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
sci投稿给了一审意见，被拒稿了，但是我觉得文章还行，想要申诉，该怎么处理？
|
||
|
REFEREE’S REPORT Points for Evaluation of the paper 1. Is the paper of sufficient scientific interest and has originality in its technical content to merit publication. No 2. If the paper is generally acceptable, are there any errors of fact, logic or interpretation which need correction(s)? Although paper is not acceptable, it is worth to be mentioning that: litteral translation leads to misunderstanding in some sentences making them meaningless. Further, since paper is without any interpretation of the submitted experimental evidence, errors in facts are hardly possible to evident. (Figure 2 is only scientific evidence presented). 3. Is the paper well written and the presentation clear and concise? If not, which portions or parts including tables and figures, need deletion, recasting or condensation. In spite of previous suggestions, paper has its own kind of presenting novelties in very specific proppant emerging field of interest, but overall impression leads to the suggestion that it should be submitted to journal which is more related to water and oil investigations, what is also obvious from the cited papers at the end, excluding the ref 32, 33 and 34. 4. (i) Have the authors cited the relevant literature? With the knowledge of the reviewer this can not be evaluated. (ii) Is there any cited document, which, in your opinion, is superfluous or irrelevant? Many references are missing; any personal name mentioned needs exact reference. 5. Is the abstract sufficiently informative, concise, and clear? Yes 6. Recommendation: Does the paper deserve to be published (i) as it is (ii) with minor modifications (iii) with major modifications (iv) rejected Specific comments, if any: -Sintering phenomenon is mentioned (page 5 second chapter), but unfortunately since it is widely used and of great scientific importance, the explanation of its fundamentals, origins and stages is hard to comprehend. Also figure 1. does not provide any help in understanding principals of pore grain relations. It is important since more advanced technique of core shell pore structure is mentioned in ch. 6.2. [ Last edited by 寻找光阴 on 2013-11-24 at 08:47 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有41人回复
-
回收溶剂求助
已经有7人回复
-
硝基苯如何除去
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
-
求助文献
已经有3人回复
-
三无产品还有机会吗
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 文章被SCI拒也就算了，还被国内期刊拒，悲催啊
已经有58人回复
- SCI被拒，心情不好！
已经有38人回复
- SCI论文一审回来审稿人意见相差非常大如何修改？
已经有19人回复
- SSCI大修后再送另一审稿人被拒，请大家帮看一下意见
已经有32人回复
- 求助：SCI文章被拒后改投时的问题
已经有7人回复
- SCI审稿人希望增加内容，如不增加会被拒稿么？
已经有22人回复
- 被拒稿了的审稿人的意见是不是修改时候不用response啊？
已经有27人回复
- SCI文章状态变为小修，但是收到的邮件里却没有小修意见，何解？
已经有29人回复
- sci拒稿率70%算多吗？
已经有10人回复
- sci 被拒后，大修改后重投这个杂志有戏吗？
已经有35人回复
- sci文章被拒了，编辑建议让改投另个期刊（哪个就不写了）， Cover Letter该怎么写？
已经有4人回复
- SCI文章投完稿发现有几个语法错误怎么办？
已经有13人回复
- 大概统计一下，有多少投稿者，一审给大修的SCI论文最终被拒的？想得出个百分比。
已经有18人回复
- sci 文章小修修回后，还会被送审吗？
已经有29人回复
- 恳请大家帮助，SCI被拒3次了，怎么办？？？
已经有31人回复
jinwei331
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 3742 (副教授)
- 金币: 28683.7
- 红花: 73
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 26959
- 在线: 1170.4小时
- 虫号: 2085922
- 注册: 2012-10-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机械测试理论与技术
3楼2013-11-24 09:08:16
2楼2013-11-24 09:00:58
guxue
专家顾问 (知名作家)
学习使人进步
-
专家经验: +1780 - IN-EPI: 14
- 应助: 2370 (讲师)
- 贵宾: 1.086
- 金币: 40628.9
- 散金: 102
- 红花: 158
- 帖子: 6480
- 在线: 609.6小时
- 虫号: 538944
- 注册: 2008-04-03
- 专业: 无机非金属类光电信息与功
- 管辖: 无机非金属
4楼2013-11-24 09:22:16
huishishui
铜虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 152.7
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 70
- 在线: 15.9小时
- 虫号: 2747146
- 注册: 2013-10-23
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机非金属材料
5楼2013-11-25 11:53:16