| 查看: 1496 | 回复: 5 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者xzq2701将赠送您 4 个金币 | ||
[求助]
给位虫友帮忙看下，这样的退稿意见，修改后想重投该期刊，是否还有机会？已有2人参与
|
||
|
如题，下面是回复内容： 26-Mar-2015 Dear Dr ***: It is my deciison that your manuscript is unsuitable for publication in Journal of Energetic Materials. I make allowances for the English writing of authors that are not native English speakers. However, there are so many anomalies, unexplained bits of the diagrams, and random, seemingly irrelevant words and impenetrable English that I cannot consider reproducing it in the Journal. From the technical point of view I find the use of an ideal gas equation of state distracting and unnecessary. For your information I attach the reviewer comments at the bottom of this email. I hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so. Thank you for considering Journal of Energetic Materials. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. Sincerely, Professor *** *** ***@*** Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The authors answered the 13 comments. They also improved the English and made the Figures easier to read. The English is not perfect. The mathematical model using the perfect gas law is unnecessary and far from the real pressures at several tens of GPa. Of course, these ideal gas pressures are far too high, because a Gruneisen EOS must be used for a condensed phase detonation and its overdriven states. This analysis should be omitted, because the authors have good hydrodynamic calculations and pressure measurements. The experiments are new and clever and should be published eventually. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author Dear Dr Xue, I am sorry to say that I found your paper extremely difficult to read. English requires the accurate use of definite article 'the' and the indefinite article 'a', or 'an'. These are often omitted, or used incorrectly throughout the document. This makes it difficult for a reader whose first language is English to understand what is being written. I also found many cases where you used words which I found inappropriate to the context. For example, in the abstract you write "For exploring.....a spherical shaped booster...". As far as I can see the booster is annular, although you show in Figure 6 a disk-shaped booster. Let me try to help a little by rewriting what I think you are trying to say in the abstract. "A Study of the Detonation Behavior of Annular Booster Pellets. An annular-shaped booster pellet has been developed in order to study the capability of such a design to initiate the detonation of Insensitive High Explosives (IHE). The detonation characteristics of an annular booster design were studied theoretically by numerical simulation and experimentally. Results showed that if the annular booster pellet were detonated simultaneously at 4 symmetrical points detonation wave collision could be achieved within the pellet. The pairs of impacts of the 4 detonation wave-fronts generated enhanced shock pressures in 4 radially symmetric directions. These enhanced energy flow regions play a major part in improving the initiation capability of an annular booster pellet compared with a conventional cylindrical one. The convergence of the 4 detonation waves at the axis of the charge also generate an enhanced initiation capability there." I have not had time to revise the whole of your document, but here are one or two suggestions for improvements in the sense. Page 1, line 37; I do not understand what you mean by 'Leading to traditional.....'. The word 'Leading' is inappropriate. Perhaps the red typescript would be better phrased as follows: 'Traditional, cylindrical booster pellets have had to be modified to ensure the reliable initiation of insensitive explosives. There has been a gradual emergence of specially shaped structures [3,4], initiation mode diversification [5] and converging output energy [6,7]. A small note here is also important. You write frequently about 'initiation energy'. This concept includes no reference to the time over which the energy is delivered. If energy alone were important, it would not matter if it were delivered over a nanosecond or a year. There must be an element of time in the delivery phase as well as sufficient intensity of the stimulus. The rise time of the pressure input may be very steep, but it is not infinitely so, since the reaction zone width, while small is not infinitely so. Page 1, line 48; the word "trend" is unnecessary here. A better wording would be '....the different sections of the detonation waveform and its associated pressure changes in the whole shock to detonation transition (SDT) were simulated. Finally, the mechanical behavior of the convergent energy in the tangential directions at the head-on collision points was studied using a steel witness plate.' Page 2, line 32; you refer to Figure 2 where a hatched area is said to represent the booster and a shaded area is said to represent the charge. Figure 2 does not show this distinction. It merely shows the hatched area. Page 2, line 38; I am unsure whether it is necessary for you to expand in depth the argument on plane wave reflection on a rigid boundary using the Ideal Gas Equation of State. The hydrodynamic software uses the JWL Equation of State. The answers are different and as you report, use of the Ideal Gas Equation of State gives results different from the JWL EOS as expected. May I suggest that you consider omitting the discussion using the Ideal Gas Equation of State and merely refer to the fact that using it, the results are as expected, bearing in mind that the JWL Equation of state is a more nearly exact presentation of the pressure, volume and temperature relationships than the Ideal Gas Equation of State. Page 3, line 48; the centimeter-gram-microsecond system of units is not widely used now. Figures 4 and 5 are quite helpful, especially the letters O, A, B, etc indicating positions and planes in the annular pellet. However, Figure 6 suddenly refers to a solid disk, without any clear explanation why. Figures 9 and 10 have appended to them in red an explanation which merely makes me more confused. ' In Fig. 9 and 10, is all element of the booster, is AA'B'B....etc' presumably refers to the different colored lines showing pressure as a function of time. These 2 diagrams are completely negated, since the vital key to which line represents which part of the annular booster is not shown. I hope that you can see how difficult your document is to understand because of the inconsistencies and omissions in the diagrams and the text. As a result the casual reader would not be able to follow your arguments very easily. There is a great deal of work which needs to be done on this paper before it is suitable for publication in The Journal of Energetic Materials. I am sorry to be so brutal, especially since I could not write a word of Mandarin or Cantonese. I have tried to be helpful and in no way wish to disparage your work. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
一志愿南京工业085600
已经有11人回复
-
085602,264求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
306求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
292求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
材料与化工272分
已经有25人回复
-
085600求收留
已经有15人回复
-
调剂
已经有7人回复
-
化学工程 288分求调剂
已经有18人回复
-
调剂
已经有6人回复
-
材料与化工专硕085600考研调剂285分
已经有11人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 杂志社发来修改意见不知道怎么处理
已经有5人回复
- 想投化学通报，了解给期刊的给点意见
已经有21人回复
- 应用生态学报退稿了，改投哪个期刊比较合适？
已经有29人回复
- 求建议重投还是换期刊（GIScience & Remote Sensing）
已经有9人回复
- 投了两个多月的稿件，状态一直是退稿。
已经有11人回复
- SCI论文因相似率高而退稿，经修改后，重新投稿该杂志，该如何给编辑写回复信
已经有12人回复
- 计算机应用关于“建议修改后重投”的问题
已经有5人回复
- 请给个建议投哪个期刊
已经有12人回复
- 这样的意见还值得重新投稿吗?
已经有4人回复
- 收到退稿邮件说让我改格式重新投
已经有21人回复
- 投某期刊后，退稿，原因题材不符
已经有17人回复
- 投稿某期刊后,反馈如下意见,是修改后重投的意思吗? 接受的可能性大吗?
已经有5人回复
- 大家帮忙参谋一下我该发哪些期刊
已经有13人回复
- 拒稿给的意见是语言不好，可否修改了重新投？
已经有20人回复
- 最近向几个期刊投了稿，结果都是退稿了
已经有17人回复
- 关于被拒后重投问题，还想投原期刊啊！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
已经有4人回复
- 编辑拒稿给了八条意见，修改完后我能否换个编辑重投这个期刊呢？
已经有12人回复
- 论文投稿后被编辑退回，但还想再投
已经有18人回复
- 第一次发SCI，大家帮忙看一下编辑回复，是否可以修改了再投这个期刊？
已经有12人回复
- Intermetallics修改后该如何投稿？
已经有5人回复
- 感觉审稿人很不看好，问题不好回答，我改重投还是改投？
已经有6人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看这样的回复是不是意味着可以改投其他期刊了？！
已经有5人回复
- 投了篇small，审稿意见如下，修改后重投有希望吗？
已经有15人回复
- 大家帮忙看下，这样的退稿意见，修改后想重投该期刊，可否？
已经有19人回复
- 论文退稿了，6页的修改意见，怎么办？
已经有27人回复
- 求助：请问大家如果被退稿了，按照修改意见改一下还能投到原来的期刊吗？
已经有10人回复
- 论文被拒后根据审稿人的意见修改后重新投该期刊的问题
已经有16人回复
myownway
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 60 (初中生)
- 金币: 12815.2
- 散金: 107
- 红花: 18
- 帖子: 3522
- 在线: 486.3小时
- 虫号: 2639749
- 注册: 2013-09-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 激光
2楼2015-03-29 13:17:30
fcxdbr421115
金虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 6 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1420.1
- 散金: 488
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 921
- 在线: 205.6小时
- 虫号: 1313591
- 注册: 2011-06-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 半导体晶体与薄膜材料
3楼2015-03-29 14:15:50
4楼2015-03-29 18:39:24
5楼2015-03-29 18:39:33
自私的猫1988
荣誉版主 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 4800 (副教授)
- 贵宾: 6.746
- 金币: 50040.4
- 散金: 11517
- 红花: 256
- 沙发: 134
- 帖子: 11684
- 在线: 1473.2小时
- 虫号: 2004083
- 注册: 2012-09-16
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 有机分子功能材料化学
- 管辖: 论文投稿
6楼2015-03-31 13:35:23
