应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » 审稿意见回复
51/1返回列表
查看: 1160  |  回复: 3
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
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

qcd1988

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 审稿意见回复 已有1人参与

2个审稿人，一个小修同意，一个拒稿，主编给机会大修，该如何回复。
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. One of the reviewers rejected the manuscript but after careful consideration I have decided to give you a chance to revise the manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Please give a careful consideration to the criticisms raised. All of them should be taken into account in a revised version of your manuscript.
Because of the extensive comments made and the criticism raised, your revised manuscript will be sent to both referees for rereview. If any of the referees declines the revised manuscript or major revisions are requested again, I will have to decline the manuscript since we cannot go back and forth with the reviewers numerous times. So, please try to do a really good job in the revision of the manuscript.
Reviewer #1: Overall, this is an interesting investigation providing experimental results on XXX.  The research is well designed and carried out with sound conclusions. English language is very good with no grammatical errors. I have only some minor comments that could make the paper even better.
Reviewer #2: In this paper about the XXX authors have proposed the promotion of XXX. An experimental result is good situation to XXX. However, such an experimental result has already been reported by some papers. The point is "XXX?" However, the author has not considered this point. Moreover, the author is mentioning the reference 29 as a paper of XXX. However, the principle of the XXX is not shown in the reference 29. Therefore, I think that this paper is imperfect.
一个月大修时间，拒稿这个人意见如何回复，跪求大神。
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chengdu_Qi2/?ev=hdr_xprf
1楼 2014-02-23 14:57:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qcd1988

至尊木虫 (著名写手)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by liu_xiao_jin at 2014-02-23 16:07:03
应该还是比较好改的，第一个审稿人的意见非常的正面，这个就不多说了。第二个审稿人的意见中，最关键的一点就是以前有人做过类似的实验，这个问题一定要回答好，明确说明与审稿人所说的那实验的不同以及此改动带来的 ...

这位兄弟说的很详细，多谢
赞一下 回复此楼
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chengdu_Qi2/?ev=hdr_xprf
4楼2014-02-23 21:38:37
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 4 个回答

liu_xiao_jin

金虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
qcd1988: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助 2014-02-23 21:30:44
应该还是比较好改的，第一个审稿人的意见非常的正面，这个就不多说了。第二个审稿人的意见中，最关键的一点就是以前有人做过类似的实验，这个问题一定要回答好，明确说明与审稿人所说的那实验的不同以及此改动带来的意义，这个应该也还是很好办的，很多实验中，一个条件不一样，就算是两个完全不同的实验了。至于审稿人提到的那个神马点，实验不能面面俱到是大家都知道的，你只要再强调下你现在所做实验的意义就行了，当然这个神马点不能影响到文章所得出的结论，否则得再修改下结论给出限制条件。至于讲的那个什么参考文献问题，从学术道德上讲起来是大问题，但这问题修改起来应该是非常容易的，直接换掉就OK了嘛。
赞一下 回复此楼
得之泰然，失之淡然！
2楼2014-02-23 16:07:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

xhy9883

金虫 (小有名气)
不错

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
回复此楼
3楼2014-02-23 16:28:25
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 4 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭