24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 1810  |  回复: 5

suiside

捐助贵宾 (初入文坛)

[求助] 关于《MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING》

小弟初次投稿,选择了投此期刊,编辑给了两个review的意见,大牛们帮忙看下这评价如何?算是大修还是小修?希望大么?

Reviewer #1: The authors may present a new issue and a topic but there is no clear description on what is a new approach or a new result. SPER (Self-propagating exothermic reaction) was already reported and there are many papers published on SPER as the authors described. For example the authors describe previously reported results and facts by referring literatures in Introduction. However, it is not clear what is new. On lines from 2 to 12 in page 4 the authors intend to describe what is new. But are Cu/Cu joints new? Cu/Cu joints seems to be not new. If they think they are new, they should explain that. On the other hand, SPER process using Al/Ni is not new. In lines from 2 to 5, "there are little work reporting the in-depth understanding of solder behaviour and the joinning mechanism of SPER process", but there is no description in lines from 6 to 12 on Page 4.

As well as to revise the sentences in such a way the reasedrs can understand what is new, the authors revise the results and discussion on their experimental results. The expression on authors of References are lack coherence. It is better to see the authors guides of Microelectronic Engineering.

Reviewer #2: A systematic work to show how SPER can be beneficial to improve Al/Ni multilayer films bonding. I think the material is good enough to get publish as is if the conclusions are based on statistical analysis. So I would recommend the authors add more data to be able to draw conclusion based on statistical analysis. Especially Fig 6 and 7 tell us that there are correlations between pressure/temperature and thickness. But it is hard to clearly address if 0.5MPa is the critical pressure or not without statistical analysis. Since beneficiary of this work would be package or BEOL engineers, a conclusion based on statistical analysis is extremely important.
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
suiside: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助 2013-11-28 10:33:03
综合两个reviewers的意见来看,需要大修。编辑给修改就说明倾向于录用,关键是要改好。
2楼2013-11-28 09:16:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chuzhufei

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

中场魔术师

期刊审稿周期多长啊?
3楼2013-11-28 10:08:07
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

suiside

捐助贵宾 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by chuzhufei at 2013-11-28 10:08:07
期刊审稿周期多长啊?

两个半月给了这些意见
4楼2013-11-28 10:09:06
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

tower-eleven

新虫 (初入文坛)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
文章要突出自己的研究成果。详细的介绍自己的成果,自己的成果与已有的研究成果相比,具备什么优势。这才是你文章重要的地方。很多人写文章,大部分内容都是在写已有的成果,审稿人看着都没有新意。
快乐与悲伤自己可以选择
5楼2013-11-28 10:19:13
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bqxu402

新虫 (初入文坛)

请问从投出到给第一版审稿意见周期有多久?
6楼2018-10-14 01:11:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 suiside 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见