| 查看: 4675 | 回复: 10 | |||
| 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 | |||
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
306求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
招08考数学
已经有12人回复
-
接收2026硕士调剂(学硕+专硕)
已经有4人回复
-
北科281学硕材料求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
306求0703调剂一志愿华中师范
已经有6人回复
-
276求调剂。有半年电池和半年高分子实习经历
已经有8人回复
-
材料与化工考研调剂
已经有3人回复
-
081700 调剂 267分
已经有3人回复
-
一志愿重庆大学085700资源与环境，总分308求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
336化工调剂
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 请大家帮我分析下审稿意见
已经有18人回复
- 审稿状态是revise是大修还是小修？
已经有8人回复
- SCI一审意见结果回来了，淡定不了喽！恳请各位大牛进来帮忙！
已经有30人回复
- Fuel的审稿建议，如何答复，求指点
已经有19人回复
- 投稿pattern recognition, 意见是Reconsider if Revised，代表神马意思？
已经有18人回复
- 大家帮忙看看，编辑这样的回复文章还有戏吗？
已经有18人回复
- SCI文章状态变为小修，但是收到的邮件里却没有小修意见，何解？
已经有29人回复
- International Journal of Thermal Sciences,4个审稿人，3个修改后接收，1个拒
已经有19人回复
- 投稿appl catal a, 20天了，还decision in process，咋回事
已经有10人回复
- 询问编辑是什么意思？
已经有14人回复
- 投了一篇文章，审稿结果是“major revision”，帮忙看看评审意见，有戏没？
已经有32人回复
- 结果是reconsider if revised(40天就Decision in Process，估计要被拒啦，太快啦)
已经有52人回复
- 文章让修改，不知道会不会接收
已经有23人回复
- 我给国外期刊文章的审稿结果和审稿意见
已经有178人回复
nono2009
超级版主 (文学泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
专家经验: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 应助: 28684 (院士)
- 贵宾: 513.911
- 金币: 2555230
- 散金: 27828
- 红花: 2148
- 沙发: 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在线: 65200.9小时
- 虫号: 827383
- 注册: 2009-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
- 管辖: 科研家筹备委员会
4楼2014-06-19 08:56:12
nono2009
超级版主 (文学泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
专家经验: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 应助: 28684 (院士)
- 贵宾: 513.911
- 金币: 2555230
- 散金: 27828
- 红花: 2148
- 沙发: 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在线: 65200.9小时
- 虫号: 827383
- 注册: 2009-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
- 管辖: 科研家筹备委员会
2楼2014-06-19 08:43:19
詹水清
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 42 (小学生)
- 金币: 1063.9
- 散金: 266
- 红花: 11
- 帖子: 557
- 在线: 1546.4小时
- 虫号: 2133635
- 注册: 2012-11-18
- 专业: 多相流热物理学
3楼2014-06-19 08:52:36
zhenwuhuang
至尊木虫 (文学泰斗)
- 应助: 4351 (副教授)
- 金币: 10192.3
- 散金: 1
- 红花: 137
- 帖子: 65925
- 在线: 2433.9小时
- 虫号: 2227382
- 注册: 2013-01-07
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 人类营养
6楼2014-06-19 09:12:44
