24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

epoxyasphalt

银虫 (正式写手)

应助: 3 (幼儿园)
金币: 2265.6
帖子: 309
在线: 106.1小时
虫号: 245468

[交流] 5个审稿人3个小修，1个大修（我认为他没看懂），1个拒，编辑拒。怎么办？

投了Construction and Building Materials，8月底投的，今天早上收到编辑的信，结果是：
Dear Dr. ***,
Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. Although they have encouraged improvement of the paper we feel that this submission falls short of the demanding standards required by the publisher and therefore I must reject it.
I appreciate that this is disappointing news.
For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Michael C Forde, PhD, FREng, FRSE, FACI
Editor-in-Chief
Construction & Building Materials
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer #1:
The paper is well written and structured. Both rheological investigation and modelling are excellent, the story flows well but an overall revision of the english is needed
I would suggest a revision of the english plus very few minor corrections:
……
Reviewer #2:
This paper presents a relatively large amount of rheological data that are used to model the linear viscoelastic behavior of ***.
The whole approach of the paper is questionable, as well as some of the conclusions drawn by the authors. （我估计该reviewer是大修的意思，下面讲了他对文中一些问题的看法，我认为他没有理解我的意思，或者是我没有表达清楚，说服他应该不是但问题。）
……
Reviewer #3:
The authors submitted two papers (Tile 1#; Tile 2#) to the Construction and Building Materials. The two papers are all about rheological behaviors of ***. So I recommend the authors to combine the two papers. Compared with "Tile 2#", the paper "Tile 1#" is more useful.（其中，Tile 1#编辑要求修改。其中Tile#1偏向实验，Tile2#偏向理论。我估计该reviewer是拒稿的意思）
Reviewer #5:
The authors performed the linear viscoelastic modeling of***. DIfferent models were tested, by analyzing the Cole-Cole plot and Black diagram. Informative results were obtained and are believed to have significance for the researchers and readers in the field of construction and building materials. However, the paper is very poorly rewritten in English. I suggest the publication of this paper after major revision, especially in English usage. The other technical comments are as follows: （主要是语言，还有introduction要更加聚焦）
……
Reviewer #6:
The authors have interpreted the excellent results with creativity, and the results are important to engineering applications. Overall, it is sufficient novelty and significance to be published in CBM. Even though, there are some questions should be noted. （主要是语言和其他一些文字细节上的问题）
……

难道是这两篇文章之间有取舍？我该怎么办？

回复此楼