| 查看: 4557 | 回复: 9 | ||
| 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 | ||
[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
289分 07求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
考研调剂 一志愿上海985 理学化学311
已经有4人回复
-
化学0703调剂自荐 一志愿东北大学312
已经有23人回复
-
070300化学331，一志愿华中师范大学，求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
想利用你又要打击你
已经有4人回复
-
2025中科院分区神刊
已经有6人回复
-
求化学调剂
已经有3人回复
-
求070300化学调剂
已经有3人回复
-
化工专硕310求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
292求调剂
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- Optical Engineering返回后的修改意见，求大家指教这是大修还是小修，并如何回答？
已经有40人回复
- 审稿意见求助(是小修还是大改？)
已经有13人回复
- 小修多久修回比较合适？
已经有16人回复
- 请大家看一下我的评审意见，是小修，还是大修？
已经有10人回复
- plos one 小修后又是under view，这是又送外审了？（已接收）
已经有9人回复
- 小修，只有1个审稿人的意见，返回后又under review了，诡异的日期居然会改变？
已经有17人回复
- 搞不懂的审稿过程 ACS applied materials & interfaces
已经有13人回复
- 牛人帮我分析一下，外审3周，大修返回后，三周给小修意见，。目前underreview
已经有16人回复
- 论文修改第二次了，也没有写大修还是小修，都是revise，第二次修改都半个月还没消息
已经有12人回复
- 审稿意见全是小修，认真修回后却被拒了。这是啥情况？
已经有47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
- J.Power sources 给了一个月的修改期限，算大修还是小修？
已经有11人回复
- 大家帮忙啊，大修返回意见：JAP小修的几个问题！！
已经有4人回复
- JAP大修后，返回意见让小修，几天提交修改稿比较合适呢？
已经有11人回复
- 论文都第二次外审完了，竟然还是没有修改意见什么的
已经有14人回复
- ES&T小修稿子还会送外审吗
已经有30人回复
- 投稿EJOC,三个都同意，不过两个大修，一个小修，编辑的意思是，修改后重新投
已经有5人回复
- 不知道是大修还是小修，套词什么意思啊？修改稿会被如何处理？等待很折磨啊！
已经有8人回复
- 我的第一SCI投稿返回意见了，这个算大修还是小修？ Physica A
已经有11人回复
- PRB这样的审稿意见算是大修还是小修？
已经有6人回复
- 小修没有完全回答审稿人意见，会不会悲剧啊？
已经有21人回复
- 大家帮我看看审稿人的意见是大修还是小修，接收概率多大
已经有9人回复
- 论文大修后再小修，居然第三次送外审
已经有20人回复
- 编辑小修，三个审稿人有一个较为负面该怎么回答
已经有7人回复
- 修改后复审，为何又送去外审了？
已经有9人回复
- sci 文章小修修回后，还会被送审吗？
已经有29人回复
3楼2014-08-03 21:17:19
gxy5669777
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 14 (小学生)
- 金币: 5891
- 散金: 2962
- 红花: 39
- 帖子: 755
- 在线: 557.7小时
- 虫号: 1835567
- 注册: 2012-05-26
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 管理复杂性研究
2楼2014-08-03 21:14:06
★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
詹水清: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2014-08-04 08:34:19
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
chengziqiang
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 122 (高中生)
- 金币: 8094.3
- 散金: 150
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 1327
- 在线: 451.7小时
- 虫号: 2427474
- 注册: 2013-04-20
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 光学
5楼2014-08-03 22:40:23
5
