| 查看: 1964 | 回复: 2 | |||
[交流]
Rejection & resubmit........是不是没希望了 已有2人参与
|
|
第一篇SCI，投了一个比较水的，今天得到回复。。。 编辑： In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s), I must decline the manuscript for publication at this time. However, a new manuscript may be submitted which takes into consideration these comments. I consider that the work needs to be taken further before it will be ready for publication in our journal. Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the reviewer(s) before a decision is rendered. You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of your manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. I look forward to a resubmission, but please take as long as you need to make the substantial improvements that are required. 审稿人1： Comments: In this paper,a vibration probe sensor is designed and evaluated. Experimental results validate the performance of the proposed sensor and the regression model. The work is interesting, but some specific points have to be improved: 1. The advantage and disadvantage of the vibration probe sensor compared with other techniques mentioned in the introduction should be elaborated. 2. The impact force of the probe is associated with the mass flow rate of particles. Please add the analysis of the relationship between the measurement signal and the mass flow rate. 3. Please analyze the generalizability of the regression models in equations (10) and (11). 4. The quality of figures should be improved, including the resolution of pictures, and the size and font of text. Additional Questions: 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: yes 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The paper demonstrated an adequate understanding of the relevant literature. 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: yes 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: not completely 5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: not clearly 6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: yes 审稿人2： Comments: 1: paper 7, line 7, e is equivalent contacting time, should be t. 2: please clarify the relation of the impact model with the experimental data, and the equation 10 and 11. Additional Questions: 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: normal 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: normal 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: normal 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Results are generally clear and right, while, there is no close tie between the experimental data and the proposed model. 5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The generality is not enough. 6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Readability is good. 审稿人只提了意见，没说别的，是不是选择了拒稿？第一个审稿人还说了interesting，第二个直接就两句话。。。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
基金啊基金
已经有3人回复
-
科研孤儿太难了
已经有15人回复
-
让我中一个面上吧！
已经有10人回复
-
言之凿凿，明天官网会通知放榜？
已经有17人回复
-
时间戳又变了
已经有17人回复
-
今天系统多次维护，明天很可能放榜！
已经有11人回复
-
时间戳变了，能看出什么问题？
已经有23人回复
-
只有每年这种时候来逛逛小木虫
已经有22人回复
-
放榜前的不淡定
已经有12人回复
-
重要消息，中午系统在维护
已经有12人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 还是reject and resubmitted
已经有8人回复
- resubmit是不是相当于重新投稿呢？
已经有24人回复
- Electrochimica Acta一审，PROVISIONALLY REJECTED，让resubmit，郁闷，不知该怎么办
已经有6人回复
- PRE状态--Not under active consideration，是不是一定没有机会了
已经有5人回复
- Resubmit是不是意味着拒稿啊？
已经有57人回复
- IJP的结果出来了，郁闷阿
已经有14人回复
Chemwpa
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 260 (大学生)
- 金币: 6161.7
- 散金: 212
- 红花: 20
- 帖子: 1855
- 在线: 380.1小时
- 虫号: 1543281
- 注册: 2011-12-19
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 有机合成
2楼2015-06-24 19:15:22
3楼2015-06-24 21:13:15
40