| 查看: 7057 | 回复: 18 | |||||
| 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 | |||||
[交流]
大修被编辑秒拒，已经按照审稿人的意见认真修改了，是否应该申诉？ 已有17人参与
|
|||||
|
LZ之前投STARCH，一个月以后回来的意见是大修，三个审稿人的意见都不多，一个是认为要further discuss, 一个说interesting,没提意见，还有一个说要minor revision. Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Why not use the Statistica program for analysis of resulados? Figure 1 only shows the results before the microwave treatment. Where are the results after the microwave treatment? The results were not enough compared to the results in the literature. It is necessary to further discussion. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author This article addresses factors commenting relationship between radical generation and microwave irradiation for various types of rice flour. The subject is not a new but analysis is interesting and within the scope of the Starch Journal. Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author Dear Editor, The manuscript has been reviewed precisely. The hidden hazards of Microwave are since several years in the centre of interest. Therefore efforts to proving the truth are welcome. The study has been designed thoughtful and contains some useful data, thus this article is deserved to be published in STARCH after minor corrections. The followings must be taken into consideration: - Radical generation mechanism as well as radical generation and losses kinetics must be included in text. LZ按照审稿人的意见补了实验，补充了discussion,还用SPSS处理了数据，害怕时间拖太长，三周后就提交了修改稿和response letter.然而提交以后两天内就收到了编辑的拒信，理由只有一句话，而且完全没有审稿人的意见。 Dear Author(s), I regret to inform you that your manuscript star.201500106.R1 has not been accepted for publication in Starch. The English and content of this paper has not been improved sufficiently for publication and therefore is rejected. Please note that this decision is final. Where review/further review was sought for the decision, the reviewers' comments are included at the end of this letter. Hopefully this will not deter you from making new submissions in the future. Yours faithfully, Prof. Richard Tester Editor Referee(s)' Comments to Author: 看到拒信顿时心凉了半截，辛辛苦苦修改的文章就这么莫名其妙被拒了。实在是想不明白。导师也很气愤，建议我给编辑发邮件询问原因，说明自己已经认真修改的情况。求助大家，请问发这封邮件有必要吗？如有必要，需要怎么说呢？ 现在真的很绝望，希望能得到大家的意见，谢谢大家~ |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 论文投稿交流的收集 | 投稿 |
» 猜你喜欢
307中医考研调剂
已经有9人回复
-
327求调剂
已经有30人回复
-
294求调剂
已经有15人回复
-
求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
0854求调剂
已经有27人回复
-
材料相关专业344求调剂双非工科学校或课题组
已经有27人回复
-
300求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
291求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
一志愿沪9，326求生物学调剂
已经有12人回复
-
生物学调剂
已经有10人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 《Advanced materials》编辑回信了，求大家给点建议！
已经有39人回复
- 被拒稿但觉得审稿人的部分意见有错误提出申诉有希望吗？
已经有7人回复
- jacs投稿-大家分析下有申诉必要吗
已经有18人回复
- 文章被拒了，两个审稿人意见完全相反，值得申诉么？
已经有45人回复
- 审稿人说大修，但是论文被拒，给编辑再发邮件申诉有用吗 7.19 更新
已经有30人回复
- 请问：投稿Journal of Physics D一篇，已将一个半月，Unable to report 什么意思
已经有13人回复
paratruth
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 金币: 1366.9
- 散金: 1693
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 331
- 在线: 277.2小时
- 虫号: 2235730
- 注册: 2013-01-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理相关交叉领域
4楼2015-06-29 16:33:57
thanwen
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 43 (小学生)
- 金币: 1741.6
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 222
- 在线: 146.9小时
- 虫号: 1730696
- 注册: 2012-04-01
- 专业: 生物技术药物
3楼2015-06-29 16:00:00
乔丹希尔
金虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 25 (小学生)
- 金币: 2923.7
- 散金: 1765
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 1744
- 在线: 369小时
- 虫号: 1971501
- 注册: 2012-09-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 兽医免疫学
7楼2015-06-30 00:36:49
flowerrainhm
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 121 (高中生)
- 金币: 1306.7
- 散金: 225
- 红花: 18
- 帖子: 823
- 在线: 87.8小时
- 虫号: 3062999
- 注册: 2014-03-17
- 专业: 物理海洋学
8楼2015-06-30 07:46:38
20