[交流] required review completed 36天后有了意见，大家看看是大修吗？ 已有10人参与

Dear Dr.  *** The reviewers' comments on your paper are below.  Kindly inform me of your reaction to the comments and address any questions you may have. As you can see, reviewer #1 is quite skeptical about the analysis presented in the paper. If you plan to submit a revised version, please into serious consideration the comments contained in his/her report. Upon agreement of the suggestions made by the reviewers, please follow the guidelines below to process your revised manuscript within 30 days:       a) outline each change made (point by point) as raised in the reviewer comments          AND/OR    b) provide a suitable rebuttal to each reviewer comment not addressed       To submit your revision, please do the following:    1. Go to: http：..........    2. Enter your login details      3. Click [Author Login]  This takes you to the Author Main Menu.    4. Click [Submissions Needing Revision]    5. Click [Revise Submission]    I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.    Yours sincerely,  *****   *************************************************************************************************** Reviewer #1: Major comments: the main result stated in the manuscript is Theorem 2, where an error estimate for the coupled discrete problem is formulated. The validity of such result, however, is not a direct consequence of the convergence properties of each subproblem independently. Unless an iterative splitting method for the coupled system of equations is proposed and its convergence is proved, the results of this manuscript are not sufficient to drive the conclusion of Theorem 2. Such an iterative method is briefly described in the numerical section, but its convergence is not addressed. The absence of a rigorous proof of Theorem 2 is a major limitation of the manuscript. Other parts of the work are also unclear, as outlined below: 1)   2）  3） 4）5）这五个都是小问题，特别是有一两个问题其实我在文中都给出了答案，但是审稿人说文中没有，真是觉得审稿人可能没有仔细看我的论文。 Conclusion: For the reasons outlined above, I believe that the manuscript is not adequate for publication. *************************************************************************************************** Reviewer #2: Conclusion: So this reviewer recommend this paper should be accepted for publishing after the following modifications: 1)   2）  3） 4） 5）Please give some comments for the convergence of the decoupled method for the model in this paper; *************************************************************************************************** 大家有谁搞算法或是计算数学方向的吗？我的文章是先给出（迭代）算法，然后分析算法的误差，对于迭代算法的收敛性没有讨论。说实话，如果能分析出来算法的收敛性，那就可以写一篇全新的文章，审稿人1觉得这是我文章的硬伤。如何回复编辑和审稿人呢？只是在论文中对收敛性做简单的陈述，哎，投的第一篇SCI，导师不管，全靠自己 审稿意见回来了，二审经历了两个月左右，小修。 Reviewer #1: After the first major revision, the manuscript has significantly improved. I believe it is now acceptable for publication, provided that the following minor revision is considered. The recommended revision mostly concerns Section 6 - Numerical results. The authors should address the following points: 1).........................; 2) ...............................; 3) ............................................... Reviewer #2: The authors have answered all the questions in the last version. This paper is a good discussion for ........ 感谢虫友们的鼓励!!!  这次也要认真修改。新年里的好消息 看来大修也是很有希望的！ [ Last edited by 花园宝宝 on 2014-12-31 at 20:16 ] .......................................................................................................................... 论文接收了，感谢大家的鼓励！！！ [ Last edited by 花园宝宝 on 2015-1-10 at 08:41 ]

回复此楼