应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » 求高人解读拒稿信
31/1返回列表
查看: 982  |  回复: 2
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

yehanwin

木虫 (正式写手)

[求助] 求高人解读拒稿信 已有2人参与

Dear Professor ****,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "论文题目". I'm sorry to say that we have concluded that 期刊 is not the most appropriate outlet for your findings.

The unfortunate fact is that we receive many more papers than we can publish, which means we must decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this sort are made by the editors when it appears that papers - including those of high quality - are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

When we consider a paper for publication, the factors that arise at this stage are a manuscript's appeal to a broad spectrum of photonics researchers, its likely impact on the field of photonics in general, and its compatibility with the aims and scope of 期刊.

In the present case, we do not doubt that the fabrication of antireflective and superhydrophilic SWS on fused silica will be of interest to others working in this particular area. However, given the presence of previous works in the areas of 工作领域, I'm sorry to say we are unable to conclude that the paper provides the sort of significant advance in conceptual understanding, technological capability or applicability that would be likely to excite the interest of researchers in the wider photonics community. We therefore feel that these findings would be better suited to publication in an alternative journal.

I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively. I would like to reassure you that our decision in no way reflects any doubts about the quality of your work. We are often forced to make difficult decisions, and we must try to select papers that will be of the greatest interest to a wide audience. I hope that you will rapidly receive a more favourable response elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,




是文章不行，还是内容不适合？？求解啊
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:
升级为木虫，纪念下！
1楼 2015-02-03 20:27:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

sdgame

禁虫 (知名作家)
★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
yehanwin: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2015-02-24 11:00:25
本帖内容被屏蔽
2楼2015-02-04 00:38:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

kqp1982

木虫 (著名写手)

【答案】应助回帖

★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
yehanwin: 金币+1, ★有帮助 2015-02-24 11:00:36
还是文章的创新性不够，主编对你这个领域还是比较清楚的，我觉得首先你要让同领域的专家好好改改文章吧，特别是引言部分，突出你文章的创新性。你看主编说你用antireflective and superhydrophilic SWS on fused silica已经不是很标新立异的东西了。我个人认为你先修改题目，主要是深挖你文章的理论创新点出来
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2015-02-04 09:19:57
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 yehanwin 的主题更新
31/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭