24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

ratnest

铜虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 投PRE的文章，这样的状态是怎么样的？希望大不？

投PRE的文章，这样的状态是怎么样的？希望大不？
两个审稿人人貌似意见不是特别一直，一个说很好，另一个说做的东西不新，写作一般，但是大修后可以发表。编辑给的是个修改，没说小修还是大修。大家给个意见哈

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the First Referee
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors of the present manuscript present the results of simulations of ***. The used is that of  (2004) and  (2001).

The results are not surprising, as this model is not new and dendrite  arrays have been very thoroughly studied in the past, the authors  should compare their results with existing literature.

While the authors cite this work, they do not compare  their results with it, although their approach is very similar. As a  part of the rewriting, the authors should cite appropriately previous works and compare their results with those previously reported.

In summary, while the results do not seem to be too surprising or new,  this work might be worthy of publication in PRE, but not at this point, as major rewriting should be undertaken.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Second Referee
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The paper presents a careful analysis of *** based on a *** model.

The calculations are based on the *** model and are done  carefully. The investigation of the important physical effects for this problem is comprehensive. The authors discuss both the trends and physical mechanisms that control the amount of ***. Their computational results are compared to two existing theoretical models to show the range of validity of these theories. This is a very good paper that makes a strong contribution to the field by (i) ; and (ii). The writing is very clear and the figures are excellent. I recommend for publication in Physical Review E.

Below is a list of minor issues that the authors may wish to address:

回复此楼