24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

shangxingbin

新虫 (著名写手)

应助: 230 (大学生)
金币: 1796.1
帖子: 2022
在线: 621.2小时
虫号: 1229905

[交流] 论文被拒，自己心服口服。

如题，看了审稿意见，自己的确心服口服。虽然文章没有毛病，但是水平达不到啊，骚年，加油吧！不要灰心
The advice to consider another journal is sound.

The following includes some additional input from the reviewer, conveyed after further communication with the associate editor. This input further clarifies that while the manuscript makes some contributions, those are mainly incremental in nature and better suited for other venues. The associate editor agrees with that view and does not recommend publication in CORROSION:

The reviewer noted: The article is quite basic (although accurate) and most of the information and conclusions are known, have been the standard analysis for years and are taught in NACE basic/advanced classes and publications. The use of BEM software for modeling and the conclusions do however provide some additional verification of we have observed for years. As an example the simple case of two parallel pipelines and a CP anode in figure 3 results in a prediction of current pickup near the anode and current discharge upstream and downstream on the foreign pipeline. This has been known for years (see pages 29 and 136 fig. 12-2, A. W. Peabody, "Control of Pipeline Corrosion", 1968" and manual soil voltage gradient calculations to estimate the effects are routinely used by CP practitioners. Field testing is always required in the complex real would to mitigate interference issues. The reviewer does not see how this article provides a meaningful step forward in the understanding of CP interference.

The reviewer feels this article does not meet the criterion of scientific advancement for publication in the Corrosion Journal. The reviewer feels the article would be better suited for Materials Performance where the readers are interested in application and verification of what is observed in the field (the commercial concern remains).

回复此楼