| 查看: 6352 | 回复: 46 | |||
garden134铁虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
投steel research international，3位审稿人两位接收，一位拒稿，请大家帮忙分析一下
|
||
|
如题，其中有两位审稿人给了一些小修的意见建议接受，其中一位貌似给的评价还很高（说是提为VIP文章，具体是啥意思我也不太明白，详见审稿意见），第三位提的意见比较尖锐，最后是要改投其他杂志，劳请大家看看帮忙分析一下编辑的意见和三位审稿人的意见，好紧张啊，谢谢啦。 Dear Dr. ***, Thank you for submitting your manuscript "****" to steel research international. The reviewer report and comments are included at the end of this email. On the basis of the reviewer comments, we are not able at this stage to accept your manuscript for publication. However, we believe that your manuscript may become acceptable for publication after major revisions, if you are able to address the reviewer comments and make the necessary revisions and improvements. The English should be improved. Please have your manuscript checked by a native English speaker before resubmitting your manuscript. To submit your revision, go to http://srin-journal.edmgr.com/ and log in as an Author using your username (********) and password. Your submission can be found under the menu item "Submissions Needing Revision". Please note that when you submit the revised version of this manuscript, you will be asked to upload a zip archive containing the production data that will be used if your manuscript is accepted. See below for more details. When you submit your revised manuscript, please include a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments in the "Respond to Reviewers" box, including a list of changes made and a rebuttal to any comments with which you disagree. All changes to your manuscript should also be highlighted in the main manuscript file. We should receive your revised manuscript by 27 Mar 2015. Please inform us if you anticipate you will need more time, as we may prefer to receive your manuscript as a new submission at a later date. When we receive your revised manuscript, its suitability for publication in steel research international will be reassessed. Yours sincerely, Sandra Kalveram P.S. If your manuscript is accepted, the revised version will be used to prepare the proofs. Please save the revised version of your manuscript using the Microsoft Word template on the journal homepage to expedite processing. Bitmap figures (e.g. photos, microscopy images) should be sent as individual Tiff files. Line art figures (e.g. plots, graphs, chemical structures, schemes) should be copied from the original application and pasted as a metafile into a Microsoft Word document by using "Edit... Paste Special... Picture (Windows metafile)". If your manuscript includes Supporting Information, please upload this as a separate file. Please also send an eye-catching color image and a short text (50-60 words) summarizing your article that could be used in the Table of Contents. ------------------------------- REVIEWER REPORT: ------------------------------- Please note that reviewers may not be numbered consecutively. EVALUATION: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Please rate the importance of this submission. Reviewer #1: Should be published in this journal Reviewer #2: Should be submitted elsewhere Reviewer #3: Should be published as a VIP paper - Top 10% of Submissions -------------------- Please rate the originality of this submission. Reviewer #1: Acceptable level of new results Reviewer #2: Insufficient level of new results Reviewer #3: Acceptable level of new results -------------------- Please rate the scientific and technical content of this submission. Reviewer #1: Minor inconsistencies or inaccuracies Reviewer #2: Major inconsistencies or inaccuracies Reviewer #3: Fully consistent and accurate -------------------- Please rate the length of this submission. Reviewer #1: Concise and correct length Reviewer #2: Contains unnecessary information Reviewer #3: Concise and correct length COMMENTS TO AUTHOR: Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors investigated the Effect of bainitic packets size distribution on impact toughness and its scatter in the ductile-brittle transition temperature of Mn-Ni-Mo Q&T bainitic steels. This project provide a useful contribution to our understanding of cleavage fracture behaviors in DBTT region in the bainitic steels. This work is worthy to be published. However, several revisions should be made before the paper fully satisfies the publication standard. 1. In line 20, page 5, the authors presented that tempering is "to obtain the bainitic microstructure". It's wrong. 2. In line 31, page 8, The authors should give the determination means in detail for the values of scattering in the impact toughness (ZIT), austenite grain size (Za), bainitic packet size (Zp) and block size (Zb). 3. The English is needed to be improved. Reviewer #2: The authors tried to reveal the influence of bainitic packets size on impact toughness by measuring Charpy impact energy of samples with different microstructures. In the second part of the article, they managed to interpret their results by fitting the data on the basis of the Weibull distribution. Their primary conclusion is not novel and has appeared elsewhere, for instance, in Ref [35]. The main comments are detailed below: 1. Introduction should be condensed substantially as it is tedious. 2. The presentation is poor and numerous typos and grammar mistakes in English usage can be found throughout the paper, making it hard to follow. This referee recommends they seek professionals to proofread before submitting their paper if they will revise. For example, this referee cannot understand the following statement; "However, it may be lead to erroneous conclusions when extrapolate the toughness values due to the statistical analysis is not based on a physical model" in P4. 3. The bainitic packet size obviously differs from grain size in conventional metallurgical microstructure. How to define a bainitic packet size and how to measure should be very important, while the authors failed in giving more details. They showed two EBSD patterns, in which 4 packets are arbitrarily lined out without explanations. Actually, to accurately characterize the size and distribution of bainitic packet is rather imperative and fundamental for further proceeding, as stated in Ref [35]. 4. Their citation for Griffith equation (1) is misleading and the explanation of symbols, e.g., d should be criticized. The data gama (γ) from Ref [35] should be deliberated if the authors have ever read that article. As the authors failed to provide convincing evidence to support their claim in this paper, it does not merit publication in the scientific Journal in its present form. Reviewer #3: This article is very important to well understand and prevent the low temperature failure of high strength high strength low alloy bainitic steels. The service conditions of cryogenic pressure vessels are extremely harsh situations. High strength low alloy bainitic steels are widely used to produce the cryogenic pressure vessels. This article investigated the low temperature impact toughness of high strength low alloy bainitic steels. It is very important to well understand and prevent its failure at low temperature. The following corrections need to be done. 1)There some grammatical or spelling errors in this manuscript, such as "alloy" was spelled as "ally" in line 18 of Page 2, "might" was spelled as " mgith" in line 54 of Page 8, please carefully correct the whole manuscript especially in English. 2)In the section of Experimental, there are many descriptions about the tensile tests, but no results were given. 3)It is better to divide the Results and discussion into more sections to well guide reading and understanding the article. ----- Steel Research International Email: editor@steel-research.de Phone: +49 6201 606 581 http://www.steel-research.de/ ***** ***** Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA - A company of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - Location of the Company: Weinheim - Trade Register: Mannheim, HRB 432833. Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Stephen Michael Smith. General Partner: John Wiley & Sons GmbH, Location: Weinheim - Trade Register Mannheim, HRB 432296 - Managing Director: Dr. Jon Walmsley ***** ***** |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
0817 化学工程 299分求调剂 有科研经历 有二区文章
已经有4人回复
-
0854可跨调剂，一作一项核心论文五项专利，省、国级证书40+数一英一287
已经有5人回复
-
070300化学319求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿985，本科211，0817化学工程与技术319求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿西南交大，求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
286求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
焦虑
已经有11人回复
-
331求调剂（0703有机化学
已经有7人回复
-
298-一志愿中国农业大学-求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
297求调剂
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- sci审稿回复，两个大修后接受，一个拒稿，这种情况怎么办？
已经有12人回复
- 第一投被拒如果改投影响因子低的杂志，会遇到相同的审稿人吗
已经有40人回复
- 投稿AEM没有推荐审稿人，看到审稿意见无语了！
已经有11人回复
- SCI投稿过程总结
已经有124人回复
- 审稿人意见不统一 编辑一般会怎么处理
已经有12人回复
- 一个审稿人建议小修，另一个审稿人拒稿，最后编辑拒稿，怎么办？
已经有15人回复
- international polymer processing 投稿，需要推荐三个审稿人，求助大神们
已经有3人回复
- 申请回避某审稿人模板
已经有8人回复
- 审稿人一个拒稿一个大修，编辑给大修，求助
已经有26人回复
- 投INTERMETALLICS已接收，审稿的时候有两个审稿人的意见，为什么接收的时候就一个啊？
已经有8人回复
- 本人第一篇SCI文章，求如何回复审稿人的意见
已经有5人回复
- SSCI大修后再送另一审稿人被拒，请大家帮看一下意见
已经有32人回复
- 投JMCC 一个审稿人拒稿，一个审稿人建议大修，然后就被编辑直接拒了，好伤心
已经有32人回复
- SCI投稿 第三审稿人
已经有40人回复
- 被拒稿了的审稿人的意见是不是修改时候不用response啊？
已经有27人回复
- 审稿人拒绝，主编给了一线希望
已经有24人回复
- Food chemistry 和 Food research international
已经有14人回复
- IMechE Part C三个专家两个推荐发表，一个建议拒稿，成功概率几何？
已经有29人回复
- International Journal of Thermal Sciences,4个审稿人，3个修改后接收，1个拒
已经有19人回复
- 3个审稿人，2个同意录用，1个审稿人始终拒稿，结果会如何？
已经有74人回复
- [求助] sci论文revise, 其中一个拒稿的审稿人意见该如何回复？
已经有14人回复
- 投稿时要填写作者，文章里的作者全都些写上吗？要天一个审稿人，怎么填啊？
已经有7人回复
james-james
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 633 (博士)
- 金币: 39389.2
- 红花: 117
- 沙发: 17
- 帖子: 28281
- 在线: 2475.9小时
- 虫号: 1446532
- 注册: 2011-10-17
- 专业: 药物化学
garden13417楼2015-02-25 19:30:23
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
 |
2楼2015-02-25 18:46:23
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
 |
3楼2015-02-25 18:56:10
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
|
|
4楼2015-02-25 18:57:42
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
 本帖仅楼主可见 |
5楼2015-02-25 18:59:24
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
| 祝福 |
6楼2015-02-25 18:59:34
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
| 祝福 |
7楼2015-02-25 19:00:09
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
| 祝福祝福发祝福 |
8楼2015-02-25 19:00:27
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
|
|
9楼2015-02-25 19:00:53
★
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
garden134(金币+1): 谢谢参与
|
|
10楼2015-02-25 19:01:05
