24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

zkexin0901

铜虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 99.5
红花: 1
帖子: 49
在线: 23.9小时
虫号: 1492125
注册: 2011-11-15
性别: GG
专业: 水产资源与保护学

[交流] 论文修改完成不知道结果怎么样已有1人参与

今天审稿意见回来了，编辑意见是：
The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

第一审稿人大概意见是：In this paper, the authors documented the abundance, density, distribution and diel vertical movement of coral reef fish at Zhubi Reef. It is a great work and very useful to understand the fish resources in the coral reef. But I think the authors have to spend more time and energy to write it again and this paper need major revision. The following are my comments for this manuscript.

第二审稿人大概意见是：After careful reading, I could say that the authors are far behind on their research. Although I believe that the data set is very interesting, the analyses and interpretations are not developed enough to be published. No statistical tests were conducted in this study even though this research requires quite a few statistical test. Therefore I am not able to judge if the results (and consequent interpretations) are correct or not. Above all, I have to say that the discussion section is not explicit enough at all. My detailed comments are as follows, which should be responded by the authors clearly before the acceptance of this manuscript .

第三审稿人大概意见是：The manuscript presents research containing valuable information on using a combination of traditional and acoustics methods to study fish assemblages, abundance, temporal and spatial distribution, and diel movement of coral reef fishes in the Zhubi Reef in South China Sea. The research is no doubt worth of publication on CJOL but the current version of the manuscript is not well written and needs lots of work to be ready for publication. I understand the difficulties for authors in English writing, but there are also issues with data analysis and presentations. Below, I have made suggestions to improve the MS. I have also re-written most parts of the MS to demonstrate how to start a paragraph with a topic sentence not “The results
are in Figure XX”. I sincere hope that my comments and suggestions will help the authors to improve their MS for publication.

我认为编辑意见是正面大于负面；第一审稿人意见不是很多，也很好回答，但是可能因为稿件英文写作不是很好，论文的结构安排不是很合理，所以他给出major revision；第二审稿人，提了50多个问题，有大有小，都是很合理的问题，但感觉他的审稿意见是倾向于拒绝；第三个审稿人的意见20多条，可能我做的东西，他比较感兴趣（从他推荐给我的一篇参考文献看，估计他也是做这方面的），感觉支持论文发表，意见里也帮助重写了很多英文。正在按照意见进行修改。不知道修改完了之后，论文还会到审稿人手里再审吗？还是直接编辑处理了？希望快点结果，不行，就改投。申报基金需要英文文章太少。

回复此楼