24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

zxf281

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 891.6
散金: 40
帖子: 67
在线: 34.1小时
虫号: 1275654
注册: 2011-04-24
性别: GG
专业: 传动机械学

[交流] 第一篇SCI 现在状态是Resive 没标大修还是小修请各位前辈帮忙看下希望大不已有4人参与

小弟第一次投SCI 水平很一般的投的是Elsevier的Ocean Engineering
去年12月投的初稿，编辑返回说修改英语后，改好后1月份重新提交，然后很快的进入了with editor状态，一直到5月11号才under review，6月1号状态变成了Required Reviews Completed
今天状态变成了resive并收到主编编来信

编辑的意见如下：
The reviewers have commented on your above paper submitted to Ocean Engineering. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form.

However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below) by Jul 20, 2015, I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript.

Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments. If a reviewer indicates that comments were uploaded in a separate file, this can be found by clicking "View Reviewer Attachments" under "Action Links" on your Author Main Page.
一共有两个审稿人意见
第一个：
The paper describes a predictive control method for a water hydraulic variable ballast system for submersible vehicles.

1. The paper has many grammatical issues that need to be addressed. I have outlined them directly on the attached manuscript.
2. On page 8, more detail is needed describing....后面就不例举了，都是写修改格式和添加详细描述的意见
第二个：
Yes, using the ballast tank is effective than the jet to control submersible vehicles. The depth and pitch control can be done by using the ballast tanks.
This paper focuses on the implementation of the system not to providing contributions of this paper clearly. For examples, Figs. 17 ~ 22 are not readable.
The meaning of showing the figures is not clear. There are two figure 21's.
In the revision, the major contribution of this research should be emphasized in stead of describing the general issues in detail.

我请问一下各位前辈，这算大修还是小修，第二个审稿专家说论文的贡献不够突出，是不是在Abstract和Introduction中添加一些本文研究工作的目的和意义的描述呀？
还有这种意见修改后再提交，录用的希望大不大呀？

回复此楼