应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 求助完结 » 修改意见是小修还是大修？已经又返回去外审了，不懂！求教！
101/1返回列表
查看: 4746  |  回复: 9
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

詹水清

金虫 (正式写手)

[求助] 修改意见是小修还是大修？已经又返回去外审了，不懂！求教！已有6人参与

请教各位，我的稿件之前已经修改过一次，第一次给的修改意见较多；这次又叫我修改第二次，下面为编辑发来的修改意见，这次不知道是大修还是小修；两次修改回来的状态都是revise，看不出大修还是小修；可是这次修改后，实际上自己修改的地方不多，提交后编辑又送外审了；请问大家我这种情况最终录用的概率有多大啊？

Ms. Ref. No.: *******
Dear Dr.*******

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.
Your username is:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The paper revised substantially according to the reviewers' comments. The bubble driven flow is difficult to model as the authors claimed, and a simplified model is applied in this work. Actually, there are progresses on the bubble driven flow work in the literature that can be referenced:

Kaiyu Zhang, Yuqing Feng, Phil Schwarz, Zhaowen Wang and Mark Cooksey, Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of bubble dynamics in the aluminum smelting process, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2013, 52 (33), pp 11378-11390

Y.Q. Feng, W. Yang, M. Cooksey and P. Schwarz, "Development of bubble driven flow CFD model applied for aluminium smelting cells",  The Journal of Computational Multiphase Flow, 2010, 2, 179-188.

Note that the bubble induced turbulence play an important role for alumina dispersion. The drag coefficient in ACD is different from the free rising region.

While it is ok to use a simplified model, at least the others' model development work should be fairly cited. Otherwise, the paper gives an impression that the authors want to hide their weakness, e,g. the bubble driven model is even not mentioned in their first draft.



Reviewer #2: Greatly improved paper since first version. Looking forward for following publications as the work presented in this paper is only the beginning! I hope you will also be presenting that work or even better some follow-up work at the ICSOBA 2014 conference in October: http://www.icsoba.info/icsoba-2014

On second reading, I think that there is even more physic involved than you are describing in your model! In order to solve the heat transfer model, you must also solve for the bath temperature (TL) yet you are not discussing about that at all. In addition to the heat exchanged with the colder alumina particles, the bath is gaining heat from the Joule heating and is loosing heat through the ledge, anodes and metal pad. I assume that you are not solving for the local variation of the bath temperature in your model? Yet, a local addition of cold alumina particles will significantly drop the bath temperature at that location. If the bath temperature is considered constant, please comment on the impact of that simplification on the alumina dissolution rate prediction. Even more important, the liquidus temperature (Tliq) depends on the bath dissolved alumina concentration http://www.peter-entner.com/E/Theory/ElProp/LiquTemp.aspx, you could compute Tliq locally as function of the
local dissolved alumina concentration, are you doing it? If not, please again comment on the impact of that simplification on the alumina dissolution rate prediction.  

First paragraph of section 3, it is still not clear how you add alumina particles. There is a feeding period of 144 seconds so every 144 seconds 7.2 kg of alumina particles are added to the cell. But this is not a continuous addition, clearly from figure 5 we can see that at time 10 seconds, no more particles are added. What is the mass flow rate of the alumina particles addition or the duration of the alumina particles addition at the beginning of the simulation?

You commented on the fact that "only" 0.063 kg of particles is felt at the end of the 144 seconds feeding cycle in the Model verification section. Clearly you cannot sludge a cell in a single feeding cycle, but at 144 seconds per feeding cycle, that represent 600 feeding cycles per day so 37.8 kg of sludge accumulation per day. Without back feeding, this sludge will keep accumulating day after day!

[ Last edited by cxksama on 2014-8-7 at 09:45 ]
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
1楼2014-08-03 21:05:38
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

gxy5669777

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2014-08-04 08:34:06
只要认真的回答专家的意见，无论是大意见还是小意见，那就等好消息吧。
赞一下 回复此楼
MoreConciseMoreEffective
2楼2014-08-03 21:14:06
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

phyguang

铁虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2014-08-04 08:34:12
听导师的话，是没有错的。我也是这么走过来的。
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2014-08-03 21:17:19
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

msbnx999

禁虫 (小有名气)
★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2014-08-04 08:34:19
本帖内容被屏蔽
4楼2014-08-03 22:07:25
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chengziqiang

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2014-08-04 08:35:31
只要是修改了就会被外审，除非审稿人小修改后直接接收不用再审差不多。

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
赞一下 回复此楼
读书身健即为福，种树花开亦是缘。
5楼2014-08-03 22:40:23
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

gadfly7

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2014-08-04 08:37:13
小修，我看没啥问题了
赞一下 回复此楼
6楼2014-08-03 23:09:44
 已阅   回复此楼   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:
5楼: Originally posted by chengziqiang at 2014-08-03 22:40:23
只要是修改了就会被外审，除非审稿人小修改后直接接收不用再审差不多。

这种情况，两个都要送外审吗？第一个人感觉不用再送了吧，现在只收到一个人已经接受审稿
赞一下 回复此楼
科研你行的加油
7楼2014-08-04 08:35:26
 已阅   回复此楼   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 gadfly7 at 2014-08-03 23:09:44
小修，我看没啥问题了

请问你怎么看出是小修的？这种情况，两个都要送外审吗？第一个人感觉不用再送了吧，现在只收到一个人已经接受审稿。因为第二个人还有迷惑，是不是只送第二个再外审？
赞一下 回复此楼
科研你行的加油
8楼2014-08-04 08:38:25
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

engp8908

银虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+2, ★★★很有帮助 2014-08-04 09:41:39
本修改充其量只算中等程度的修改。
第一审稿人，可能和所提供参考有关，说明你对所做领域内的有关进展没有概括全面，这样在论文中引用就好，最好在前言部分提到，在讨论部分再次比较最好。
第二审稿人基本上，可能是业内熟悉者或者对所研究的东西非常感兴趣，咨询了几个和实验以及模型密切相关的问题。直接一条一条地回答就可以了。
至于再次交稿后是否送审，得编辑说了算。但是从所提问题来看，只要你能把问题回答了，那么我估计交稿后1个星期左右就该通知你录用了。
赞一下 回复此楼
9楼2014-08-04 09:21:12
 已阅   回复此楼   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:
9楼: Originally posted by engp8908 at 2014-08-04 09:21:12
本修改充其量只算中等程度的修改。
第一审稿人，可能和所提供参考有关，说明你对所做领域内的有关进展没有概括全面，这样在论文中引用就好，最好在前言部分提到，在讨论部分再次比较最好。
第二审稿人基本上，可能 ...

非常感谢你的回答和指点，可是现在已经送外审了啊，而且只看到有一个人同意再审，不知道编辑到底是送了两个还是一个再外审呢？
赞一下 回复此楼
科研你行的加油
10楼2014-08-04 09:42:40
 已阅   回复此楼   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
101/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭