| 查看: 5864 | 回复: 30 | |||
| 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 | |||
F_Shaw捐助贵宾 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
两个审稿人给出了大改，但Associate Editor给了拒稿 已有3人参与
|
||
|
Dear Dr. XXXX, Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising that we consider accepting your paper after major revision. However the needed revisions are too substantion to allow the paper to proceed without a second round of review. Please consider my rejection this version a "soft" decision. Both reviewers have indicated that they would like to see the revision and they will be invited to review the new submission. Both reviewers have agreed to be identified. XXXX is Reviewer #1, and XXXXX is Reivewer #2. Both reviewers have downloaded files in addition to the comments listed below. Let me know if you have any problems downloading this files. The one issue that must be addressed in a revision is a clear distinguition from previous publihsed papers. It is fine to document how new data supports conclusions made in prior work, but these must be significant advances and you must be clear as to why the new information either proves or disproves previous studies. Considering the extent of revision needed, I have not provided any editorial input to this version. I would be willing to help you with the revision prior to your formal resubmission. The easiest way to do this is for you to email me your revised manuscript (XXXXXXX) and we can work outside of the Elsevier system. ———————————————— Reviewer #1: The purpose of this paper, as poorly stated in lines 90-95,XXXXXX. I completely re-wrote this paper because without doing so, it would have been impossible to understand the aim of the work. Although the paper is very poorly written, it may be worthy of publication with major revisions. I have two major objections (items 1-2 below) and several recommendations for the authors. XXXXXXX ———————————————— Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented a valuable case study on XXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX. The data analysis is logical, the conclusions are convincing in general. The figures and tables are largely adequate to support the points made in the current manusript. The length of the manuscript is about right, although it could be slightly longer if the authors are going to make revisions according to the reviewer's suggestions. Major issues with the current manuscript include the following: XXXXXXXXX ______________________ 两个审稿人提了很多意见，Associate Editor的意思是在我重投之前，可以协助我修改，工作量有点大啊！ 各位虫友有没有这样的经历，像这样机会大不大？ [ Last edited by F_Shaw on 2014-4-11 at 13:58 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料与化工304求B区调剂
已经有7人回复
-
0703化学336分求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
[复试调剂]西南科技大学国防/材料导师推荐
已经有6人回复
-
化学工程321分求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
211本，11408一志愿中科院277分，曾在中科院自动化所实习
已经有4人回复
-
材料专硕326求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
东南大学364求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
国自科面上基金字体
已经有7人回复
-
药学383 求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
286求调剂
已经有5人回复
22楼2014-04-08 09:40:25
2楼2014-04-07 17:10:46
★
F_Shaw: 金币+1 2014-04-08 10:39:45
F_Shaw: 金币+1 2014-04-08 10:39:45
 |
3楼2014-04-07 17:18:24
04010126
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 56 (初中生)
- 金币: 5841.6
- 散金: 166
- 红花: 15
- 沙发: 9
- 帖子: 7760
- 在线: 177.9小时
- 虫号: 2909415
- 注册: 2014-01-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 水力机械及其系统
4楼2014-04-07 17:44:38
50