24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3987)
>虫友互识 (654)
>文献求助 (249)
>导师招生 (165)
>休闲灌水 (103)
>招聘信息布告栏 (93)
>考博 (80)
>博后之家 (67)
>论文投稿 (48)
>硕博家园 (33)
>教师之家 (27)
>考研 (24)
>晶体 (23)
>论文道贺祈福 (22)
>公派出国 (21)
>基金申请 (17)

返回列表

demon1314920

金虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 636.5
散金: 7983
红花: 5
帖子: 1023
在线: 1127.7小时
虫号: 2316436
注册: 2013-03-04
性别: GG
专业: 光学信息获取与处理

[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