| ²é¿´: 5124 | »Ø¸´: 58 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
[½»Á÷]
chem commͶ¸å11Ììºó£¬Ö±½Ó±»±à¼¾ÜµôÁË¡£Ö»ºÃÄêºóÔÙÕ½ÁË¡£
|
|||
|
Thank you for your submission to ChemComm, which I have read with interest. I regret to inform you however that this manuscript will not be considered further as a submission to the journal. All manuscripts submitted to ChemComm are initially evaluated by the Editors to ensure they meet the essential criteria for publication in the journal. I¡¯m sorry to say that on this occasion your article will undergo no further processing because it is not of sufficient urgency and impact to appeal to our wide readership. Papers published in ChemComm should report preliminary accounts of original and significant research that will appeal to a wide general readership or be of great interest to the specialist. The rejection rate for papers submitted to ChemComm is ~70%. Further information regarding our policy on the initial assessment of submissions can be found on our website at http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Jo ... ssessment/index.asp ¶ÔÕÕÁËһϣ¬ A manuscript may be returned to the author(s) without external review if, in the opinion of the Editor, the manuscript falls into one or more of the following categories: •the manuscript clearly falls outside the scope of the journal; •the work is of poor scientific quality such that it is clearly not suitable for publication in a top-tier scientific journal; •the manuscript is of insufficient general interest for the journal and would be better suited to a more specialised journal; •the novelty of the work falls below that required for the journal; •the manuscript represents undue fragmentation of the research into multiple papers; •the manuscript contains redundant information or significant amounts of material that has already been published elsewhere or is under consideration by another journal; •the quality of the English in the manuscript is so poor as to render the science presented unclear; •the manuscript has already been reviewed and rejected by a different RSC journal, and the author(s) have made little or no attempt to address the advice of the Editor and/or referees already given; •the conclusions drawn by the manuscript are well known or have been previously published. Ã²ËÆÊDZ༾õµÃÓ¦¸ÃͶ¸üרҵµÄÆÚ¿¯¡£ ²»¹ýÎÒÓиöÒÉÎÊ£¬»á²»»áÒòΪ²»ºÃÒâ˼ֱ˵дµÄÌ«À㬶øÎ¯ÍñµØÒÔÎÄÖÐËù˵µÄÔÒò¾Üµô°¡£¿ ÈçÖ®ÄκΣ¿»»¸öרҵÆÚ¿¯ÊÔÊÔ£¿ÇóÒâ¼û£¡ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
2026Äê8ÔÂ25ÈÕ¹ú×ÔÈ»·Å°ñǰͻȻÊÕµ½ÁÐÈëÆÀÉóר¼ÒÓʼþ£¬ÓйØÏµÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÒ»ÇøT0PÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,¿ÆÄ¿È«,¿É+¼±
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
½ñÌìÎñί»á¿ªÍêÁË£¬Ã÷Ìì³ö½á¹ûÂð
ÒѾÓÐ21È˻ظ´
ÔÚ¼á±ù»¹¸Ç×ű±º£µÄʱºò£¬ÎÒ¿´µ½ÁËŷŵÄ÷»¨¡£
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Ã÷ÌìÓ¦¸Ã¿É²éÁË£¡£¿
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
ÓÐûÓдóÉñ°ïÎÒ¿´¿´»ù½ð´úÂë
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
·Å°ñǰµÄ²»µ¶¨
ÒѾÓÐ19È˻ظ´
ijЩ»ú¹¹£¬ÒÔЧÂʵÍΪÈÙ£¬ÒÔЧÂʵÍ×÷Ϊ´æÔÚ¸Ð
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
2026¹ú×ÔÈ»º¯ÆÀ·Ñµ½ÕË
ÒѾÓÐ23È˻ظ´
½ñÈÕ²»·Å°ñ£¿Íø´«¹ú×ÔȻԤ¼Æ 8 Ô 27 Èտɲé½á¹û
ÒѾÓÐ22È˻ظ´
59Â¥2015-11-17 16:12:00
6Â¥2014-01-29 22:20:37
11Â¥2014-01-29 22:30:14









»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥