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    

CyRhmU.jpeg
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 » 投稿到applied optics ，主编问为什么投这个杂志而不是其它的杂志
51/1返回列表
查看: 2399  |  回复: 4
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

dukehong

新虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] 投稿到applied optics ，主编问为什么投这个杂志而不是其它的杂志

投稿到applied optics，审稿意见已经来了，说理论性太强，问为什么不投到其它的杂志。其中一个审稿人也要求说明这个问题。
审稿意见是这样的
editor：
In particular in your answer, I ask you to address the issue to why this rather theoretical paper is suitable for Appl. Opt. and not more so, for instance, for the more theoretically oriented journal JOSA A.
Reviewer 1:
XXXX et al. propose a new computational method for optical propagation in gradient refractive-index waveguides. This new method based on conjugate transpose is described in a didactic way. Moreover, the figures and formulas are clear and accurate. There are some typing errors to be corrected:
Page 5 Exmple 1
Page 7 the coordinate matrix N is is
The proposed numerical examples demonstrate that the new method improve the computational accuracy compared with the AOM. The paper provides significant results in the area.

Reviewer 2:
Although the authors deal with an interesting subject the English of the paper is well below that of a respectable journal. In many cases the readers having to struggle to figure out what the authors try to convey in their paper. The authors should either ask for help from a native English speaker or use professional services for bringing the English of their paper to an acceptable level. (还推荐英语服务。。。)

Additionally, the authors should give emphasis to optical applications rather to problems of applied mathematics and give results in terms of optical engineering and physics rather than the “orthogonality by two methods”.

8. The authors in section 3.B should present the proposed method more clearly. It was not very obvious to me what is the new contribution. What are the differences with the AOM method presented in [7]?

11. The authors should emphasize to applications and give examples that belong to the field of “Applied Optics” and not “Applied Mathematics”.
（问这问题还不如直接给拒了呢。。。。。。。。。）
The authors are encouraged to change the manuscript having in mind the previous remarks.
所有的评审意见没有涉及到本质的内容，都是技术性问题。是不是他们没看懂啊？主编觉得不合适的话，为什么不直接打回来，而是要等到审稿结束了才问这个问题呢？
（因为之前有投过这个杂志，所以才投的，之前的也算是比较理论的内容。）
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:
1楼2015-03-11 14:21:13
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dukehong

新虫 (初入文坛)
为毛没人回复啊？
回复此楼
2楼2015-03-12 12:45:17
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

翟明岭

金虫 (著名写手)
不懂，理论性强不应该是好事吗
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
3楼2015-03-12 13:07:45
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dukehong

新虫 (初入文坛)
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by 翟明岭 at 2015-03-12 13:07:45
不懂，理论性强不应该是好事吗

定位是应用光学吧，说我的文章是应用数学，不是应用光学。
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2015-03-12 15:51:17
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dukehong

新虫 (初入文坛)
怎么发金币啊…
回复此楼
5楼2015-03-14 16:12:10
 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 dukehong 的主题更新
51/1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