24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 4527  |  回复: 10

詹水清

金虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 审稿意见该如何回答,reconsider my decision是啥意思?

请教各位,我有一篇稿件,审稿意见如下,编辑说 I would be pleased to reconsider my decision是什么意思?修改稿还要修回进行外审吗,还是编辑自己会作决定?两个专家提到的加一个bubble force,以目前的知识水平目前实在是做不出来,而且也没看到有人做,不知道该如何回复啊。如果我实话实说,编辑会怎么处理呢?

Dear Dr. XXX
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.  
For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.
If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This paper studies the alumina dissolution process in alumina reduction cells using a computational modelling approach. The alumina dissolution determines the local concentration of alumina in an aluminium cell, and plays an important role in determining the cell performance. The topic and results are very interesting and novel. The only drawback is that the bubble driven flow is not considered in this paper. To my understanding, the alumina mixing process is dominantly driven by bubble induced flow, rather than the MHD force. It is better to state this in your revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: I agree that to my knowledge too it is the first paper on the full simulation process of alumina in a cell.

Such a model is supposed to address both the sludge formation problem and the anode effect problem. You raise the sludge problem and the fact that at the end of your first and only feed cycle there is still 0.11 kg of undissolved alumina particle but there is no provision for sludge formation (particles crossing the bath-metal interface) and entering the metal in your model.

You are acknowledging that the CO2 bubbles have an important impact on the bath flow yet you have decided to neglect that impact altogether. Obviously this means that the results presented in figure 4 due to the MHD flow presented in figure 3 is only a demonstration of concept not valid for industrial application.

You are saying that you don't have access to enough computer resources to solve a fully coupled 4 phases flow by adding bubbles to your current model. I would argue that you should first solve a 2 phases flow that consider the MHD Lorentz force and the bubbles drag force on the bath flow. Second you should solve the TPPBM model without any coupling with the CFD flow solution obtained in the first phase as in my view that coupling has a negligible impact on the bath flow except in the 160 mm x 120 mm feeding area for the few seconds that you are actually feeding the particles to the bath.

In order for your model to be able to predict anode effect problems, the model should be run enough feeding cycles to get away from your artificial initial uniform 2.5% dissolved alumina concentration in the bath and get to the quasi-steady-state dissolved alumina concentration distribution in the bath (of course using a bath flow that is considering the bubble drag force).

Finally, under the current limitations of your model, I would far more interested to see more results in 3D around 1 feeder region. How fast are you adding your 1.8 kg of alumina particles in 1s, 2s 3s? In that region your fully couple CFD-TPPBM model is really ready for industrial applications, would it help alumina dissolution to add that 1.8 kg in 10s 20s?

Minor revisions recommendations:

-no need to write TAYLOR in capital letters in second page second to last paragraph

-reference 22 was published in 2013 not 2010

-please specify the actual flow rate used in the presented results in the phrase: A total of 7.2 kg of alumina is fed ... at the end of the first paragraph of section 3.

-the presented results gives the impression that this is only a 2D model, it would be nice to add a close-up figure showing the vertical alumina concentration and particles position at 1 feeder region about 10s to 20 s after feeding. Any particles reaching the bath-metal interface, if so at what speed?
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

科研你行的加油
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

zzupc

铜虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
这就是标准语言,如果你修改,会重新送审,或者直接做决定。你能做的就是好好修改
8楼2014-06-19 10:38:11
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

★ ★
詹水清: 金币+2 2014-06-19 09:34:47
让修改。如果修改好了,就会录用,这就是 I would be pleased to reconsider my decision
2楼2014-06-19 08:43:19
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

詹水清

金虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by nono2009 at 2014-06-19 08:43:19
让修改。如果修改好了,就会录用,这就是 I would be pleased to reconsider my decision

关键是两个审稿人提到的同一个核心问题,在这个模型里面我实在是无法做到,但是在我后续的博士研究内容,都已经解决了,只是这篇文章里面由于篇幅限制,无法体现出来。

  不知道该如何回复呢,很担心,博士就等这篇论文了,编辑没说是大修还是小修,真的有希望吗?
科研你行的加油
3楼2014-06-19 08:52:36
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by 詹水清 at 2014-06-19 08:52:36
关键是两个审稿人提到的同一个核心问题,在这个模型里面我实在是无法做到,但是在我后续的博士研究内容,都已经解决了,只是这篇文章里面由于篇幅限制,无法体现出来。

  不知道该如何回复呢,很担心,博士就等 ...

既然已经解决了,就应该给出,至少简要说明一下。

让修改,就是有很大的录用希望。但修改不好而被拒的也比比皆是
4楼2014-06-19 08:56:12
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mzhyan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

blessing
5楼2014-06-19 09:00:59
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhenwuhuang

至尊木虫 (文学泰斗)

★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
詹水清: 金币+1 2014-06-19 09:34:58
我很乐意重新考虑我的决定
6楼2014-06-19 09:12:44
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

詹水清

金虫 (正式写手)

引用回帖:
6楼: Originally posted by zhenwuhuang at 2014-06-19 09:12:44
我很乐意重新考虑我的决定

这是啥意思,编辑本来是要拒稿吗
科研你行的加油
7楼2014-06-19 09:15:34
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

邴绍所

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

真心的祝福你,
真心的祝福你。
9楼2014-06-19 10:51:22
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
10楼2014-06-19 15:57:21
已阅   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 新能源达人 的主题更新
信息提示
请填处理意见