|
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖 etener: 金币+10 2014-04-26 18:13:29
Reviewer #1: Through a thorough reading and reviewing, the reviewer suggests that the following problems should be addressed and the manuscript should be modified.
1. Keywords should contain "Lauric acid".
换或者加关键词
2. XRD results reveal that the IKL and LA/IKL have the same diffraction peak at 2<theta> of 7.8o, indicating that the LA molecules are mainly located on the IKL surface rather than the inner-layer. Please discuss in more detail.
不能用XRD来indicated 物质A在物质B的层内,只能证明复合后A存在于B上
3. In the FTIR spectra, there are no peaks at 3670 and 3624 cm-1, please check why?
红外上3670、3624是不是含OH或者N-H,根据你的物质来解释,但要也自己上下文解释相对应,不能有明显的矛盾;有可能审稿人会误导你回答,不要掉进陷阱
4. The authors note that the LA drives the IKL to exfoliate, which may afford an increase of specific surface area for LA/IKL. However, BET results reveal an obvious reduction of specific surface area. Is there any other reason for this reduction, for example the LA/IKL aggregation? Since SEM images imply that LA/IKL has larger size than IKL.
BET指出你的分析是不正确的,所以审稿人让你从SEM颗粒增大、BET比表面积减小来解释,而不是光说一句"may afford an increase...",需要多看看文献的解释,结合自己的有力的实验证据解释
5. Please check the result of the impregnation ratio of LA in LA/IKL (51.5 wt%), which should be about 58 wt%.
按审稿人意见修改,或给出解释
Reviewer #2: This manuscript reported a novel form-stable phase change material (FSPCM) for thermal energy storage which was prepared by*******. I have read the whole paper and find that this study is simple and less novelty. The very similar work been published in Journal of Materials Science & Engineering (Preparation and Thermal Properties of Binary Organic / kaolin Composites as Shape-stabilized Phase Change Material for Thermal Energy Storage, 2013, 31, 268-272.) In addition, the Ref. 19 and Ref. 29 have been cited repeatedly. Therefore, this paper in present stage could not be accepted for publication in Energy.
这一点很难解释,我曾经也遇到过,编辑直接给拒了,我感觉有可能这个审稿人与其所列的文献有交集的,而你没有引用这篇,所以他很明显的不想你的文章被接收;感觉再怎么解释也有可能是画蛇添足,在文章中引用这篇文献吧,看这个审稿人及编辑的脸色吧
Reviewer #3:
这个审稿人的意见还是比较好回答的,一条一条回答,该改的改,不改的话就好好解释,最后一条也是说文献阅读量的问题,还是要多看看文献的解释的。
也就是说你如果真想在这个期刊上发的话,先认真修改审稿人1、3,审稿人2的话就把那篇文献引上去,然后解释下自己的文章与这篇文献的区别,有区别的话是不是能说有点novel呢?看你自己怎么解释了,总之这个RL最主要
如果时间来不急的话感觉好好看看审稿人的意见然后修改自己的文章换个相同档次的期刊更好点,记得引上审稿人2说的文献、审稿人3的文献也可以引用。这是因为审稿人2的意见也许已经让编辑对你的文章有一些不好的看好,虽说修改文章与写RL是相呼应的,但还是需要费时间的,所以如果时间急的话真的不如改投一个审稿周期快点的(前提是按审稿人1、3的意见加以修改了)。个人意见啊,其实我也没有那个胆量改投,结果浪费了三个月被拒,真不值。 |
|