| 查看: 821 | 回复: 1 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者paoying将赠送您 50 个金币 | ||
[求助]
编辑建议楼主重投,大家帮忙看看还有戏吗
|
||
|
一大早就看到文章的审稿意见，整个人都不好了。两个审稿人：一个建议大修（修改意见主要是对几个计算公式、计算表解释得更详细些），另一个审稿人直接建议楼主把文章拆成两篇，分别再补充些内容。编辑建议楼主修改后重投，楼主觉得第二个审稿人让人很受伤。 编辑的意见：The reviewers agreed that this work is original but have expressed serious reservations about its publication at this stage that I don’t believe could be addressed through a standard major revision. In light of the comments received, I am unable to accept the manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels. However, if further experimentation, analysis, and revisions allow you to address the referees concerns in full we would be happy to consider a new version submitted as a resubmission to this manuscript. Please upload a point by point response to all reviewer comments if you decide to resubmit. Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Publish after major revisions. Comments: Please discuss experimental and analytical procedures in greater detail (section 2.2). Please explain eqs. 1, 2 and 8. Please discuss results in Tables 4 to 7 in more detail. Please remove errors in citing and writing references. Additional Questions: Originality: Good Technical Quality: Good Clarity of Presentation: Good Importance to Field: Good Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Do not publish. Comments: The topic is very relevant. My opinion is that this paper should be splitted into two separate papers: First paper: ###### Second paper: Column runs with material balances, full column and packing geometry and run details: include everything you have measured. Also if possible the original data of the column measurements as appendix. Thus the this paper would be a very top paper in the field. Most papers presenting test runs with real columns miss details which inhibit the proper simulation of the column system. This maybe often done deliberately and as such hinder the development of new simulation methods and testing of column models. You could here make a real contribution to the field. Were the sampling systems/sampling lines made of inert materials like sulfinert? Otherwise the analysis results will be distorted. Safety factors: No specified in the paper. Additional Questions: Originality: Excellent Technical Quality: Fair Clarity of Presentation: Good Importance to Field: Good |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
华南理工0703化学，总分336求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
301求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
336材料与化工085600求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
一志愿武汉理工大学080200机械工程308分，求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
285求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
生物学求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
0854求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
319分085702安全工程求调剂
已经有4人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 第一篇SSCI论文，请看下这个意见怎样回复为好
已经有14人回复
- 请各位帮忙看看编辑的回复，我是应该修改后重投还是改投其他刊物，非常感谢
已经有6人回复
- revise and resubmit，审稿人意见 如何回复啊？为啥重投还有时间限制呢？
已经有8人回复
- 审稿人说没有新意拒绝，但编辑给大修!
已经有8人回复
- 编辑要求Revise and resubmit，有戏吗？
已经有17人回复
- 审稿人一个major revision，一个reject，编辑建议resubmit，大家遇到这个怎么处理？
已经有8人回复
- 这种情况重投还有希望吗？
已经有9人回复
- 我该怎么回复呢？求求大家帮忙看看
已经有21人回复
- 文章被拒，编辑建议重投后，还是原来的审稿人么
已经有25人回复
- 文章已收，大家帮忙看看编辑部返回的修改意见？
已经有14人回复
- 三个审稿人,一个直接拒掉,两个要大修,各位看看还有戏没?
已经有15人回复
- resubmission & reject 请教大神帮忙
已经有17人回复
- 审稿意见，有必要重投，有戏吗
已经有7人回复
- 第一篇SCI被拒，纠结要不要重投，大家帮忙看看
已经有26人回复
- 第一次投稿，中文核心CSSCI，退修，流程是在编辑部，但含审稿专家意见，请问有戏吗
已经有12人回复
- 投Energy &Fuels 编辑的拒信，大家看看还有戏吗？
已经有7人回复
- 大家帮忙给看看这文章是被接收了吗
已经有37人回复
- 大家帮忙看看，编辑这样的回复文章还有戏吗？
已经有18人回复
- 投稿BBRC，被拒要求修改语言，改后重投，请问有必要这样做吗？
已经有65人回复
- 投了一篇JPBA，三个月给拒了，编辑的拒信
已经有43人回复
- sci 被拒后，大修改后重投这个杂志有戏吗？
已经有35人回复
- 文章被拒后编辑建议改投另一个杂志，不想改投是否可以重投
已经有15人回复
- 这篇稿子还有戏吗，是修改后再投，还是换个刊物？
已经有20人回复
- 第一次投稿被拒了，大家帮我看看还有没有希望修改后重投。谢谢！！！！！
已经有10人回复
2楼2015-07-03 09:47:15
