24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4828)
>休闲灌水 (1258)
>导师招生 (1043)
>虫友互识 (555)
>文献求助 (416)
>博后之家 (284)
>招聘信息布告栏 (201)
>论文投稿 (164)
>考博 (150)
>硕博家园 (126)
>找工作 (111)
>第一性原理 (94)
>基金申请 (43)
>绿色求助(高悬赏) (42)
>生物科学 (38)
>考研 (36)

返回列表

heated

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 29 (小学生)
金币: 3970.1
散金: 10
帖子: 661
在线: 296.7小时
虫号: 915
注册: 2003-03-04
性别: GG
专业: 物理电子学

[交流] 大家帮忙分析一下APL审稿意见

最近投APL，审稿很快，从投稿开始不到10天就返回两个审稿人意见（一个审稿人不到1小时就返回审稿意见，一个审稿人不到半天返回审稿意见）。编辑的意见如下：
Editor's Comments:
The major concern of one of the reviewers is the novelty of the investigation and/or of the findings. I would like you to answer to this concerns in your rebuttal, the level of novelty of the manuscript will determine my final decision, i.e. whether the manuscript can be publish in APL or should be transfer to a sister journal.

编辑只发来两个审稿人的Comments to author，没有审稿人的Evaluations。
Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author):
The manuscript is interesting enough. A possibility to form xx on xx, as demonstrated in the present work, can be useful for xx. Actually, I found only two ambiguous points to be clarified.
First, xxxx(此处省略). Please, give some explanation in the text.
Secondly, xxxx(此处省略). It is advisable to comment this.

Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author):
This is an interesting topic and the organization of the paper is clear. However, this manuscript contains hardly anything new compared to literature reports. The study of xx can be found in, for example, xx; etc. As for the study of xx, it has been clearly investigated by micro X-ray many years ago. xxx is not particularly new either.

审稿人1的意见比较好答复，关键是审稿人2认为文章没有新东西（我们制备的结构是在硅衬底上，而审稿人提到的之前报道都是做在了GaAs衬底上；我们与之前的报道采用的光学特性分析手段相同，出现的现象也很相似，但借助我们的结构可以将很多功能器件从GaAs衬底移植到硅平台上，从而对硅基光子学有一定的作用）

请各位帮忙分析分析。

回复此楼