24小时热门版块排行榜

南方科技大学公共卫生及应急管理学院2026级博士研究生招生报考通知（长期有效）

返回列表

dxhit

银虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 222.9
帖子: 42
在线: 25.6小时
虫号: 235385
注册: 2006-04-01
性别: GG
专业: 红外物理与技术

[求助] 文章重投又被拒，好像还是被同一个人拒，请大家给点意见已有16人参与

第一次投的JOPT，两个审稿人，一个审稿人的意见很积极，而另外一个审稿人意见非常刻薄，简单的说就是文章没有新意，而且错误很多，拒稿，下面附上这个人的审稿意见
This manuscript does not present any new method to optimize design the MLDOE, and which only contribution may be in calculate process. About this point, the manuscript does not give out properly results. And there are several statements not appropriate and even some flaws. For these reasons this manuscript do not published on this Journal. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:
1. The paper describes a calculated process to calculate the optimal surface relief height of MLDOEs directly, but this calculated process does not give out excited results, because the essence is to take the partial derivatives of fig. 2 in reference [6]. It is no different about how get the maximum point through partial derivatives or read directly. （确实是用了相同的目标函数，但我们直接推导了最优高度的解析解，不在需要迭代或枚举优化）
2. The analysis about the materials selection, fabrication tolerance sensitivity, influence of environmental temperature and angle of incidence almost had been published. This manuscript does not give out best conclusion, because the discussion about the fabrication tolerances is less rigorous, and the results are more approximate than the results of the existing methods.（完全没看懂我们的文章，我们分析的是为了获得最高、最稳定的衍射效率，如何选材，不知道怎么就扯到了他提到的分析，而且是已经做过的）
Above all, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the results don't show good and good results. So I do not find that the manuscript give out good results. So I think that this manuscript is not suitable for publication on this journal.

在被拒后，对第二个人的意见很无语，但是我们还是很认真的分析了我们的文章，强调了我们的方法与原来方法的区别，并且对文章结构也做了很大的修改，第一个审稿人的意见当然也全数消化。
改好后投又投了OA。还是两审稿人，一个审稿人很快就完成了评审，觉得文章不错，“ I believe that this manuscript is appropriate for Applied Optics. ”；另外一个审稿人，先是要求更多的评阅时间，然后给出了拒稿的意见，从审稿意见上看，这与上次是同一个人，因为说的话几乎完全相同，下面是那个人的审稿意见

This manuscript does not present any new method to optimize the MLDOE, and which only contribution may be in calculations. And the calculated results may be no true with compared to the method in the reference[6], because the results in this manuscript was calculated from the approximate method can be seen from Eq [6], meanwhile, this method is confused for readers and engineers, because the calculative method are more complex and many approximate process. There are several statements not appropriate andeven some flaws. For these reasons, the constant of this manuscript do not appropriate to publish on this journal. The followings are questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:
1. On page 2, there are some inappropriate expression and conspicuous mistake in formula (3), (6) and (7). This calculated process does not give out excited results, and become more complex. （我们的方法确实有近似，但是文章说的很清楚，近似是合理的，而且确切的说是准确的，对比计算也证明了，而且公式哪有错啊？完全没错好不.....然后我们的方法直接就可以计算得到最优结果，他却说相比于枚举优化计算更加复杂......）
2. In part 4, this manuscript proposed some different guidelines of material selection. But those calculate depends on the infrared fields which materials refractive index and Abbe number change a lot on a different band. It is not appropriate to use a whole wave band to replace that. This is why we usually design an infrared optical element in 3-5 and 8-12um waveband rather than 3-12um. Besides it is also led to the linearity of the refractive index difference discuss. Above all, I think that the constant of this manuscript is not suitable for publication on this journal. （说我们得出的结论只是适合红外领域。。这也是问题，文中强调了结论是红外领域适合，也说了可作为可见波段的参考；我们引入的一个评价函数好像在它看来也不应该.....这也是不适合的......）

这个审稿人是编辑找的第10个审稿人，前面的多是以too busy没有参与，没想到这第10个又貌似是与上次拒我文章的是同一个人，现在好混乱。。

是继续改呢，可是真不知道怎么改，第一个审稿人只是说文章有个公式的显示有问题，另外就是让我分析下推导的直接计算公式是不是以前方法的更一般的形式；然后就是这个人的意见，无从下手。
改后从投，要是又送给了这个审稿人，我该怎么办.........

请大神们给点意见，先谢了！

回复此楼