24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 2637  |  回复: 13

飞鸿惊鸿

铜虫 (著名写手)

[求助] 请诸位小木虫的高手帮忙鉴定一下这封编辑回信是什么意思,有修改后接受的意思吗 已有1人参与

主编:
I regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in International Journal of Sustainable Energy.  
The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter, along with those of the editor who coordinated the review of your paper.  I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful.
I have read your paper and believe that it can become a good one, so I would strongly encourage you to proceed along those lines.
Sincerely,
审稿人意见
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
There are two main weaknesses of this submission,
1) The use of the English language requires major revision, to the extend that it becomes very difficult for a reader to follow the material presented, and
2) the paper places great emphasis on the development of the model used, making the reading of paper cumbersome.  Instead, it could be more useful to the readership of this journal, if authors emphasized results and discussion more than model development.
In addition, although there is a discussion of the model results (i.e. "4. Model analyses", actual results of this work are never, explicitly, presented.  Therefore, discussion and conclusions drawn are based on the esoteric knowledge of the authors.
However, it should be noted that the concept introduced is interesting.  If it were better presented, it could have been a submission to be accepted.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this paper, the authors investigate evolutionary game of oil and gas companies’ pollution treatment. Their results show that government plays a dominant role in game process, and its strategy choice has profound and important influence on two other participants’ strategy choice, which means measures stimulating government supervision also are the measures for companies to treat pollution and for residents not to monitor pollution.
Overall, the topic of this paper is interesting. I suggestion some revisions before seriously reconsideration for publication.
1. The motivation is relatively weak. Please revise the introduction.
2. The paper needs a very careful English editing!
3. The references should be revised according to the style of this journal.
Editor's Comments to Author:
Associate Editor
Comments to the Author:
This can become a good paper, but it needs a lot of work both in terms of substance and editing.
I believe it would be better if the authors re-write it as a new one, taking help from a native speaker in English and taking into consideration the comments by the reviewers
and then re-submit it.
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:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

leimin2008

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
9楼: Originally posted by 飞鸿惊鸿 at 2014-03-19 22:24:28
我其实不太明白第一个审稿人的第二条意见,您帮忙看看我理解的对不对哈:过于强调模型运用使文章显得晦涩;第四节的分析没有明确指出模型结果;结论不是来自模型。
关于第二个审稿人的第一条意见,他是说我前言太 ...

就是说你过多叙述模型,但是关于结果和讨论等核心部分叙述不够。所以头重脚轻。 第二个审稿人说的是你对于写这篇文章的动机不太明确,需要修改。(你看下别人的文章,里面一般有个明确的逻辑,研究背景,意义等,以及你为什么要写本文,是因为前面的工作哪里不够等,要清晰说出来)
10楼2014-03-20 09:38:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

小小老百姓

铜虫 (小有名气)

我个人理解感觉,还是蛮有希望滴

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
2楼2014-03-18 18:50:50
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

leimin2008

新虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与,应助指数 +1
飞鸿惊鸿: 金币+20, ★★★很有帮助 2014-03-19 19:30:09
飞鸿惊鸿: 金币+10, ★★★很有帮助 2014-03-19 19:30:37
编辑的意见就是修改重投,比大修还难听点,但是只要按照所有审稿意见修改(1,2),以及修改英语语法语言等,然后重新投,接收希望还是很大的。个人建议,一定要严格按照审稿人和编辑的意见一条一条回答好,这样可以增加接收概率,祝好运。
3楼2014-03-18 21:54:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

飞鸿惊鸿

铜虫 (著名写手)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by 小小老百姓 at 2014-03-18 18:50:50
我个人理解感觉,还是蛮有希望滴

那到底是什么意思呢?

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
4楼2014-03-18 22:36:18
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

飞鸿惊鸿

铜虫 (著名写手)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by leimin2008 at 2014-03-18 21:54:21
编辑的意见就是修改重投,比大修还难听点,但是只要按照所有审稿意见修改(1,2),以及修改英语语法语言等,然后重新投,接收希望还是很大的。个人建议,一定要严格按照审稿人和编辑的意见一条一条回答好,这样可以 ...

原来比大修还惨啊

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
5楼2014-03-18 22:37:45
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

leimin2008

新虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by 飞鸿惊鸿 at 2014-03-18 22:37:45
原来比大修还惨啊
...

只要让你修改,而不是直接拒稿,那就表明有希望,所以你现在要做的就是把这点希望放大,好好按照意见修改。毕竟这也是对自己文章的一种提升,就算以后改投其他杂志,说不定相同的问题还是会遇到,所以好好改吧。好文章都是改出来的
6楼2014-03-19 19:58:41
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

湘女萧萧

新虫 (正式写手)

按照审稿人意见修改后重投:重投时要告诉编辑是重投的。把原审稿人的意见、你的针对性的答复有以及你对文章进行了哪些修改,比较详细的发给编辑,同时将重新写的文章重新投递。

» 本帖已获得的红花(最新10朵)

7楼2014-03-19 20:07:35
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

飞鸿惊鸿

铜虫 (著名写手)

送红花一朵
引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by 湘女萧萧 at 2014-03-19 20:07:35
按照审稿人意见修改后重投:重投时要告诉编辑是重投的。把原审稿人的意见、你的针对性的答复有以及你对文章进行了哪些修改,比较详细的发给编辑,同时将重新写的文章重新投递。

谢谢谢谢,可惜我的金币都已经送出去了,就送你一朵红花吧
8楼2014-03-19 22:16:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

飞鸿惊鸿

铜虫 (著名写手)

引用回帖:
6楼: Originally posted by leimin2008 at 2014-03-19 19:58:41
只要让你修改,而不是直接拒稿,那就表明有希望,所以你现在要做的就是把这点希望放大,好好按照意见修改。毕竟这也是对自己文章的一种提升,就算以后改投其他杂志,说不定相同的问题还是会遇到,所以好好改吧。好 ...

我其实不太明白第一个审稿人的第二条意见,您帮忙看看我理解的对不对哈:过于强调模型运用使文章显得晦涩;第四节的分析没有明确指出模型结果;结论不是来自模型。
关于第二个审稿人的第一条意见,他是说我前言太拖沓吗?

请您帮忙看看我理解的对不对啊
9楼2014-03-19 22:24:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 飞鸿惊鸿 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见