24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

marvel_xun

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
帖子: 1
在线: 41分钟
虫号: 3348690
注册: 2014-08-01

[交流] RSI审稿意见，修改后论文通过可能性大吗？已有3人参与

Your paper has been reviewed. Please see the report below which lists in detail the comments of the reviewer and myself. In view of the reviewer's recommendation, I cannot accept the article in its present form.

However, if you wish to revise the paper to meet the objections expressed in the review, I will be happy to give it further consideration.

I regret that I am not able to send you a more favorable report at the present time.

The revised manuscript should be uploaded promptly. If you are unable to meet the 120 DAY REVISION DEADLINE, you must submit a new manuscript (new receipt date will be given) and refer to your previous submission (include manuscript number) in the cover letter. In your cover letter please explain what is new relative to the old submission including a detailed list of modifications made in response to the reviewer and editor's comments.

Please use the following URL to submit
1) Revised article file (no highlighted or marked up text. You have the option to upload a "marked" copy as a Additional Material for Reviewer/Editor Only)
2) "Response Letter" - detailing your revisions/rebuttal; and
3) Separate figure files for each cited figure (all parts in one file of any multi-part figure):

Sincerely,

Jonathan Lang
Associate Editor
Review of Scientific Instruments

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Your uploaded figure files must be numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. Not alphabetical.

*************************************************************************
Editor's Comments:

*************************************************************************

Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
Recommendation: Reconsider after revision
Technically sound: N
New ideas: Y
Just a variation of known device or technique: N
Appropriate journal: Y
Proper context with related work: Y
Clear explanation: Y
Adequate references: Y
Suitable title: Y
Adequate abstract: Y
Significant numerical quantities: N
Clear figures with captions: N
Excessive text or figures: N
English satisfactory: N
Regular Article vs Note: Regular Article

Reviewer #1 (Remarks):

This paper describes the development of a new flash x-ray generator with photoconductive semiconductor switches having the potential to provide low-jitter pulses with 100 Hz repetition rate. While the electrical design and operation of the generator are described in detail, some of the claims made in the paper require more detailed explanation and supporting evidence:
1. Present the measured x-ray dose from the generator and show that it is adequate for the intended application of diagnosing hydrokinetical experiments.
2. In Fig. 8, can the electrical design of the generator be modified so that the current and voltage pulses arrive at the anode-cathode at the same time and thereby increase the high-energy x-ray output? While it is said the calculated current and voltage waveforms agree with the measured waveforms of Fig. 8, plotting both the calculated and experimental waveforms together for comparison would help understand the difference in the arrival times.
3. When eventually operating at 100 Hz, the large number of shots accumulated in a short time could erode the tapered anode and require replacement of the anode or the entire commercial cold cathode tube. Was the anode erosion characterized so that 100 Hz operation could be sustained for a reasonable time?
4. Figure 10 is given to justify 100 Hz operation but the figure has no time scale. What is the time scale, and what modifications to the generator would be necessary to achieve 100 Hz operation?
5. Figure 9 needs more explanation. Is it a radiograph of the x-ray emission from anode rods of different diameters, and how was the radiograph recorded and at what x-ray energy?

回复此楼