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

F_Shaw

捐助贵宾 (著名写手)

应助: 95 (初中生)
金币: 2224.8
散金: 925
红花: 53
帖子: 1201
在线: 348.8小时
虫号: 1257528
注册: 2011-04-07
性别: GG
专业: 矿床地球化学和有机地球化

[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