[交流] 屌丝求助！这样的Decision让人忍无可忍！！想申述，请问成功的几率大么？好心人帮忙

Ms. No.: xxxx Title: xxxx Corresponding Author: xxxx Dear xxx, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Solid State Chemistry. Your paper, referenced above, has been reviewed by experts in the field. Based on the comments of these reviewers, we regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in the Journal of Solid State Chemistry. The comments of the reviewers are included below in order for you to understand the basis for our decision, and we hope that their thoughtful comments will help you in your future studies. While you may be disappointed by this decision, I would like to urge you to continue to consider the Journal of Solid State Chemistry for publication of future manuscripts. Reviewers' commentsif comments are not present please click on reviewer attachment link in EES) Reviewer #1: In this article the authors present xxx. The article goes well with the new trends in acid-base catalysis. They characterized the catalyst using different techniques (FT-IR, XPS, TEM, N2-adsorption pore distribution, TGA). They examined the catalytic properties of the prepared polymers using Knoevenagel condensation and Michael addition reactions and compared their activity with classical catalysts (CaO, ..). I recommend the publication of this article in JSSC provided the authors address the following points: -        Language, grammar, punctuation needs extensive editing -        Pores were described in the article as nanopores and mesopores. They all should be classified as nanopores. -        XPS figures of C showed two deconvoluted peaks of different intensities. On page 6, the authors assigned them to C=C and C-N of the ring. I believe the high intensity should be assigned to C-C of the backbone of the polymer and the low intensity to the C in the ring. -        Figure 3 showing the contact angle is meaningless, it should be omitted. It should be replaced by the TEM figure in the supplementary. -        Since the polymers contain basic sites, the authors should report the pH of the surface. Reviewer #2: The manuscript, "xxx" written by xxx presents the result of xxx. The manuscript is not publishable in JSSC because of the following comments. [1] The title "xxxxx" should be modified because it implication is too wide and further English is wrong. [2] In the experimental section, there is no description for the characterization method though the manuscript was submitted as a full length article though it appeared in the supplementary information [3] The supplementary data should be appeared in the main text, not SI only. [4] The adsorption data in Figure 4 has been misinterpreted completely. In the absence of the description on the method for the adsorption measurement, the adsorption data can also be interpreted as the sum of adsorption and absorption. The previous report by the same author showed more reasonable adsorption quantity (xxx) [5] Superhydrphobic may have the same meaning as the superwettability for organic compound. [6] For knoevenagel condensation and michael addition, please use large capital K and M. As a whole, the manuscript is not organized well and it needs complete restructuring. Therefore, the manuscript should be rejected. 本来就很屌丝了！感觉他妈的被黑了 ，请问大家怎么申述？多谢交流帮忙。

回复此楼