| 查看: 1456 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 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 | |||
[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» 猜你喜欢
学硕274求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
一志愿郑大材料工程290求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
环境工程 085701，267求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
083000学硕274求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
一志愿085600中科院宁波所276分求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
材料专业申博
已经有3人回复
-
307求调剂
已经有20人回复
-
285求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
材料与化工（0856）304求B区调剂
已经有8人回复
-
370求调剂
已经有3人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 一审意见是大修，内附审稿意见，诸位大神帮忙看看发表的可能性大吗？
已经有4人回复
- 论文的审稿意见求大家看怎么修改
已经有4人回复
- 再求助一个尴尬事：论文接收，但是审稿人还有意见，需要改图。咋办
已经有8人回复
- 论文审稿意见，你怎么看？亲。
已经有12人回复
- 修改后再审的审稿人是原审稿人吗？
已经有11人回复
- SCI论文一审回来审稿人意见相差非常大如何修改？
已经有19人回复
- SCI论文审稿结束之后，按意见修改之后，会不会再返到审稿人手里
已经有32人回复
- 投稿农业机械学报，审稿意见为修改后重审，中的几率大么？
已经有9人回复
- 回复审稿意见，需要把修改后的内容复制到意见下面吗
已经有4人回复
- 科学通报的审稿意见为改后复审，录用几率大吗？
已经有3人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，论文该如何修改？
已经有31人回复
- 投了篇small，审稿意见如下，修改后重投有希望吗？
已经有15人回复
- 这么个审稿意见，录用几率大吗？
已经有20人回复
- 岩土力学审稿意见，修改后再审
已经有25人回复
- 请问这样的审稿意见修改后录用的几率大吗
已经有5人回复
- 论文修改--审稿意见
已经有140人回复
- 审稿意见“修改后录用”，改得不好的话会不会被毙掉
已经有48人回复
- 审稿意见为修改后再审，能不能要求撤稿
已经有16人回复
- 论文被拒后根据审稿人的意见修改后重新投该期刊的问题
已经有16人回复
- 论文被拒，但编辑说按审稿人的意见修改后再重新提交还是有可能会接受
已经有25人回复
- 这样的审稿意见退休后直接接受的可能性大不？
已经有11人回复
- 大家帮我分析一下material and design的审稿意见，录用几率大不？
已经有24人回复
- 请问一下，是不是审稿时间越长，被录用的可能性越大呢？
已经有58人回复
- 国内EI期刊，文章被退稿，审稿意见说可以修改后重投，成功率大吗，值得吗？
已经有17人回复
- 审稿意见回来，一个审稿人让据，编辑说大修，大家帮我看看希望大不
已经有24人回复
3楼2014-08-08 16:07:38
lzg020716
木虫 (文学泰斗)
- 应助: 222 (大学生)
- 金币: 17918.1
- 散金: 108
- 红花: 48
- 沙发: 2
- 帖子: 63498
- 在线: 2558小时
- 虫号: 279196
- 注册: 2006-09-16
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 植物生理与生化
2楼2014-08-08 15:29:41
tieweihao
至尊木虫 (著名写手)
隐士
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 22076.3
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 2471
- 在线: 139.2小时
- 虫号: 1242532
- 注册: 2011-03-23
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 气体放电与放电等离子体技
4楼2014-08-08 18:02:27
