| 查看: 3586 | 回复: 5 | ||
张宸鹤新虫 (小有名气)
|
[求助]
第一次投SCI，被拒，审稿意见求点评 已有2人参与
|
|
前一段时间投了篇文章，被拒稿，我不知道还有没有修改之后继续投的必要，其中有个审稿人说文章没有创新点，但是我都查文献了呀，就没查到相关的内容，这是问什么呀？审稿人意见如下： I write you in regards to manuscript # JMES-13-0638 entitled "Design, meshing characteristics, and stress analysis of cylindrical gears with curvilinear shape teeth" which you submitted to Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. Thank you for considering Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. Sincerely, Sarah Howe-Buck, Assistant Managing Editor The Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science Office Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The generation of tooth surfaces, unloaded and loaded TCA for cylindrical gears with curvilinear shape teeth was presented in this paper. However, for this type of gearing, there have been extensive studies performed on the manufacturing and contact characteristics. And I can not find enough highlights in this paper. So, publication for this paper would appear premature. Also, some problems need to be further improved in this paper. 1, The literature review part in the introduction is not sufficient. 2, For the tooth surface generation part, the meshing equation can not be found. Also, many figures are not clear enough. 3. For the new algorithm mentioned in page 5 for unloaded TCA, did the author perform the verification analysis with the general algorithm? How can you think that the results are right? 4, The relation between the unloaded TCA and loaded TCA in the paper is not clear. 5, In numerical examples part, two cases were used here. However, to reduce the difficulty of installation as the reason to use case 2 is not reasonable in my opinion. 6, In page 8, the author mentioned that “Same results were obtained by experimental tests. The……”, but I can not find any experimental results in the paper. Since there are no tested results to verify the theoretical computed results, from the point of publication, more in-depth results and analysis should be added to the paper before acceptance. 7, English language revision required. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The authors intend to provide a procedure of design and investigate the meshing characteristics and stress analysis of cylindrical gears with curvilinear shape teeth. After a thorough revision of the paper, the procedure described by the authors is completely theoretical, far from any manufacturing technique and do not provide the real surfaces of curvilinear gears. The provided geometry is not based on a real generating tool. The authors use a rack cutter to generate an involute profile (Figure 2) in 2D space. Then the involute profile is rotated to get the tooth surface in 3D space. This approach is totally wrong if the real surfaces of curvilinear gears are to be studied. The sentence in line 19 of page 3 is unacceptable in a scientific-paper: “Gear tooth surface is approximately produced by sweep the involute and fillet curve along tooth trace BOA” that summarizes what was described before and main weakness of the paper. Therefore, the provided design, meshing characteristics and stress analysis results are useless because the provided results are far from those that can be obtained for the real geometry of curvilinear gears. Authors are recommended to use the theory of gearing in order to obtain the generated gear geometry from circular cutters provided with the generating profiles as shown in Figure 2 of the paper but in 3D space and do not use geometric approximations in order to overcome some difficulties in gear generation. This paper cannot be recommended for publication in its current version. Associate Editor(s)' Comments to Author: Associate Editor: Hills, David Comments to the Author: As you will see from the attached reviews, this article falls some way below the journal's standards. I do not wish to consider it any further. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
基金中了
已经有12人回复
-
关于代码变化问题，想知道的进来
已经有9人回复
-
关于filecode
已经有6人回复
-
固定端突然变了，今天
已经有10人回复
-
听说今天filecode变了
已经有47人回复
-
filecode与中标关系的预测
已经有3人回复
-
filecode变化情况
已经有22人回复
-
十年后又回来了，论文投稿求助
已经有4人回复
-
大家散了吧，后缀研究没有意义，别浪费时间了，过好目前的每一天，不要焦虑
已经有7人回复
-
关于豆爷回答的JTJC与%2F数量
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 每次写审稿意见都发愁，有没有虫友愿意分享自己的SCI论文审稿意见？
已经有128人回复
- SCI被拒，心情不好！
已经有38人回复
- 求助，第一次投SCI被JPS拒了，根据审稿人意见改改能再投JPS吗
已经有6人回复
- SCI审稿后，不止有审稿意见还有一个带批注的pdf文档
已经有17人回复
- 第一次投SCI，三个多月返回SCI修改意见：大修！
已经有20人回复
- 刚收到SCI期刊的审稿意见，如何回答审稿人？
已经有23人回复
- sci如何回复审稿意见，尤其是改格式的审稿意见？
已经有8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
- 审稿意见回来，一小修，两拒
已经有7人回复
- 第一次投SCI文章 要求好审稿人
已经有6人回复
- 做个调查，投sci期刊初审意见大修的情况下后续的结果
已经有5人回复
- 小弟第一次投论文，审稿意见回复有些不太明白的地方，请教一下
已经有9人回复
- 投SCI外刊，如何回复审稿意见，谢谢！！！
已经有6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审稿意见回来了，编辑给的moderate revision，麻烦大家帮分析一下，有BB
已经有28人回复
- SCI文章的审稿意见，录用结果是只给注册投稿系统的邮箱发吗，谢谢！
已经有14人回复
- 从未投过SCI，却被一SCI期刊邀请审稿，怎么回事
已经有20人回复
- SCI投稿审稿人意见是这样的怎么回复？
已经有9人回复
- 第一次投SCI，修改一次后被拒，该怎么办？急切！谢谢！
已经有51人回复
- 【求助】我投的文章返回的审稿意见中有一句非英语的句子，请大侠帮我翻译一下！！
已经有4人回复
- SCI文章审稿人意见回来，却不知如何答复，请各位前辈指点
已经有7人回复
- 第一次投sci的审稿意见，小虫请教～
已经有14人回复
cake2008
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 29 (小学生)
- 金币: 1515.9
- 散金: 1631
- 红花: 25
- 帖子: 827
- 在线: 331.1小时
- 虫号: 430849
- 注册: 2007-08-11
- 专业: 杀猪
2楼2013-12-14 16:25:35
★
magicb: 金币+1, 我很赞同 2013-12-27 04:59:36
magicb: 金币+1, 我很赞同 2013-12-27 04:59:36
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
3楼2013-12-15 13:04:33
4楼2013-12-16 20:47:13
张宸鹤
新虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 306.8
- 散金: 20
- 帖子: 141
- 在线: 40.2小时
- 虫号: 1645504
- 注册: 2012-02-26
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机械摩擦学与表面技术
5楼2013-12-20 16:12:44
6楼2013-12-26 21:55:33
20