| 查看: 1147 | 回复: 0 | ||
demon1314920金虫 (著名写手)
|
[求助]
请问OE这种审稿意见，被编辑看后拒掉有申诉的可能性吗？
|
|
感觉不像是optics express的犀利审稿意见啊 Dear Sir/Madam: A decision has been made on the above manuscript. As a co-author, I thought you'd be interested in seeing the referee comments. In view of their recommendations, I cannot accept the manuscript for publication in Optics Express. If there are no reviewer comments below, please contact the corresponding author to view them. Sincerely, 某个中国人姓名 Associate Editor, Optics Express PS - If the below reviewer response refers to uploaded comments, you must ask the corresponding author for this information. Only he/she has access to it. --------------------------- Reviewer comments are provided here: Reviewer 1 The manuscript requires significant revisions with respect to content and presentation: - the grammar and language needs improvement in the entire manuscript. - the authors do not comment on how such a difficult design would be fabricated. the main drawback of this design is the complicated structure which may be impossible to fabricate in a cost effective manner - authors have not included any performance comaprison with other work to enable the reader to make a judgement on the value of the design presented Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 The Authors present a numerical investigation of XXXXXXXXXXXX. In my opinion the paper presents several flaws and thereby I don’t recommend publication on Optics Express in its current form. The Authors should address the following concerns: 1) The overall English level should be improved. The poor language quality prevents the reader from clearly understanding the content of the paper. 2) The proposed PCF appears to be hard to fabricate. The design relies on air-holes of three different sizes, some of them being very large compared to the hole-to-hole spacing. Moreover, only two air holes should be selectively filled with liquid, which appears a difficult task. 3) The position of high-loss peak due to SPP appears to be extremely sensitive to the fiber cross-section parameters. The Authors should consider how the PCF fabrication tolerances may impact on the transmission properties. 4) The unit of λ in Eq. 2 should be provided, since the formula units appear to be not consistent. 5) Most figures are extremely difficult to read. In particular, the labels of Fig. 2 are too small, and too many overlapping lines are present in Figg. 4, 5 and 6. 6) The comment to Fig. 2 in the main text claims that the loss of y-polarized mode reach 675.787 dB/cm (page 5). According to Fig. 2 that loss value is reached by the x polarization. Since these results are not consistent with those shown in the following figures, I assume that there are errors in the labels of Fig. 2(b) and (c). |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
348分环境工程·调剂
已经有5人回复
-
考研调剂
已经有4人回复
-
283分材料与化工求调剂
已经有25人回复
-
298求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
266求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有19人回复
-
考研调剂
已经有3人回复
-
材料295
已经有6人回复
-
288求调剂 一志愿哈工大 材料与化工
已经有39人回复
-
285求调剂
已经有7人回复
找到一些相关的精华帖子，希望有用哦~
sci一个拒绝，一个推荐发表，编辑拒稿，是否申诉？？？
已经有39人回复
- 审稿意见是小修接受，编辑拒稿，怎么申诉
已经有12人回复
- 文章被拒了，想申诉，跪求大侠指导看看审稿意见能不能申诉呀。
已经有15人回复
- 一个审稿人建议小修，另一个审稿人拒稿，最后编辑拒稿，怎么办？
已经有15人回复
- 看看电工技术学报给我的审稿意见
已经有3人回复
- 被拒稿但觉得审稿人的部分意见有错误提出申诉有希望吗？
已经有7人回复
- 为什么每修回一次，编辑都给我重新找新的审稿人？怎么回事？求解答
已经有14人回复
- 这样的审稿意见可以申诉吗？
已经有20人回复
- 投JMCC 一个审稿人拒稿，一个审稿人建议大修，然后就被编辑直接拒了，好伤心
已经有32人回复
- JCIS被拒，无审稿意见
已经有43人回复
- 文章被拒了，两个审稿人意见完全相反，值得申诉么？
已经有45人回复
- 大修后被编辑拒掉，重投会换审稿人吗？
已经有13人回复
- 补充下审稿意见，大家看看JACS申诉胜算多大？？
已经有15人回复
- 收到JACS审稿意见， 据稿要申诉么？？？
已经有58人回复
- 论文被拒后 如何申诉？
已经有16人回复
- 物理化学学报，已经返回两位审稿人意见，请大家看看最后有没有可能被拒掉？
已经有4人回复
- 审稿人要求大修，却被编辑给拒了，是否可以申诉？
已经有15人回复
- 请教Appliced optics 修改意见中为什么只看到一个审稿人的意见？
已经有9人回复
- J. Power Sources 审稿意见一个同意一个拒绝，麻烦大家看看，有必要申诉吗
已经有8人回复
- 投稿Langmuir，审稿人都说可以发表，编辑拒稿，这种情况有必要申诉吗？
已经有10人回复
- 论文被拒，但编辑说按审稿人的意见修改后再重新提交还是有可能会接受
已经有25人回复
- 审稿人说大修，但是论文被拒，给编辑再发邮件申诉有用吗 7.19 更新
已经有30人回复
- 被J.Phys.Chem C拒了，2个审稿人意见差别很大，遇到这种情况我该咋办
已经有16人回复
- 审稿人的意见是拒绝，主编和副主编给了修改的机会，怎么办？？
已经有27人回复
- 推荐的一个审稿人明显让他的学生来审稿，意见直接影响编辑决定，有必要申诉吗
已经有18人回复
点击这里搜索更多相关资源科研从小木虫开始，人人为我，我为人人
