24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1348  |  回复: 5

chengguo

新虫 (初入文坛)

[交流] 这样的审稿意见差距好大 已有3人参与

Dear×××,

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "×××", which you submitted to ×××.

Based on the advice received, I feel that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which are attached, and submit a list of responses to the comments.
Please also submit your response as separate submission item.
   
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript within eight weeks.

Editor in Chief

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: The authors propose×××.
The proposal is very good, and good results were obtained by using the proposed scheme; but one believes that an ind-depth mathematical analysis of the proposed scheme is needed. One advices the authors to analitically explain their results.
In general, the manuscript is well written; technically and with proper English grammar. But one advices the authors to revise the manuscript once again for English grammar.
Further observations:
--- The authors claim that the ××× has the same performance as the ×××, but requires less ×××. One advices the authors to give an in-depth mathematical analysis to explain the observation.
--- in Section 3 Example and Discussion: one advices the authors to go give more details as of how the algorithm was applied. It would be nice to see a Table with the simulation parameters.
--- Try to give an in-depth analytical explanation of the results obtained in Figs. 2, 3, and 4.


Reviewer #2: The paper has no novelty.
Authors did not explained novelty of their work.
Authors are advised to carry out quality and latest literature review on the topic.
Work shows a minor contribution towards the field.

第一个审稿人的意见,关于数学推导实现不了;第二个审稿人直接否定了。咳,这文章已经被其他杂志拒过两次了。
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

potyvirus

木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
正常来说,第二个编辑这样的意见一般是无效评价,所以你的文章被接受的可能性还是很大的,编辑reconsider,说明他还是想要你的文章的,你回答好第一个专家的i见,对第二个专家的意见有礼有节的回答,谦虚点,基本能过,很可能不送专家再看的
2楼2014-10-14 15:29:16
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

jinyincao

铁杆木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
第二个审稿人挺不负责的
坚持科研路
3楼2014-10-14 15:35:17
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

chengguo

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by potyvirus at 2014-10-14 15:29:16
正常来说,第二个编辑这样的意见一般是无效评价,所以你的文章被接受的可能性还是很大的,编辑reconsider,说明他还是想要你的文章的,你回答好第一个专家的i见,对第二个专家的意见有礼有节的回答,谦虚点,基本能 ...

是可能不再送给第二个审稿人看吗?我现在针对第二个审稿人,把文章几乎重新写了一遍,增加了一些内容,要是不再送给他看,我这样做还有必要吗?还是直接主要针对第一个审稿人的意见?第一篇SCI收到意见,很多不是很清楚,谢谢!
4楼2014-10-14 16:42:27
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

makunjida

至尊木虫 (知名作家)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
第二个人很麻烦,意见不具体,除非编辑再找个审稿人,否则第二人还会拒稿

[ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ]
5楼2014-10-14 16:48:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

potyvirus

木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by chengguo at 2014-10-14 16:42:27
是可能不再送给第二个审稿人看吗?我现在针对第二个审稿人,把文章几乎重新写了一遍,增加了一些内容,要是不再送给他看,我这样做还有必要吗?还是直接主要针对第一个审稿人的意见?第一篇SCI收到意见,很多不是很 ...

回答和必要的调整还是要的,显示你很尊重编辑及专家,不要给编辑感觉你很傲。
6楼2014-10-15 12:34:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 chengguo 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见