一篇论文,审稿6个月,4个月的时候催了一次,昨天催了一次,今天一大早收到信,被据,不过只有一个审稿人。编辑要我修改语言后,重投,说会马上接收,大家给点意见。发表到一区的杂志上的。
Dear Mr. *,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Unfortunately, I could only find one reviewer who actually rejects the manuscript because of the insufficient language use.
I agree with the conclusions of the reviewer and reject the paper for now, only. Please have a native speaker correct the manuscript and resubmit it to me, then I will swiftly proceed to accept it.
The concept you publish is very interesting and the characterization very rigorous. it is only the language that is of insufficient quality.
Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,
The authors of the manuscript have done an enormous work for membrane characterization using a panel of classical techniques: FESEM, AFM, XRD, TGA, ATR-FTIR and contact angle experiments as well as exploiting deeply the data coming from filtration experiments. They have also taken care of looking at the recycling ability of the synthesized membranes which is a very good point. The synthesized membranes are of interest for many researchers. In this way, the topic of this paper suits the scope of * journal.
However, the pity is that this work is deserved by a very bad writing. The text is not pleasant for readers with many mistakes, unfinished sentences and sometimes, strange meanings… I have the impression authors did not re-read carefully their paper. Communication barrier is really too high. On the latter point, the paper does not fit * standards.
Even many figures are not correct: peaks attributions do not correspond to the X axis (eg. Fig. 2), discussed values do not correspond to the curves (eg. Fig. 3, Fig. 4) … Thus, some scientific conclusions are approximate or imprecise. The list of changes is too important.
I am afraid that major revisions should be done before acceptance for publication in any scientific journal.
Consequently, I reject the manuscript for publication in *.
Sincerely yours. |