24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 3826  |  回复: 16

stone1235617

木虫 (正式写手)


[交流] PRL编辑的第一段话是什么意思?

编辑的意见,最后一句话是什么意思,倾向于接收还是不接收呢?
The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.
The resulting reports include a critique which is sufficiently adverse
that we cannot accept your paper on the basis of material now at hand.
We append pertinent comments. We do not consider the referee's
arguments in the first paragraph of their report to be particularly
convincing as to the suitability of your manuscript for PRL.

第一个审稿人
In their paper, the authors study the  *****. The paper uses
a combination of numerics, and a  self-consistent Born approximation
that is strongly based on the  discussion of Ref. 21, to *****
. I find the paper nicely written, and  believe the results to be sound.
I would, however, recommend publication in a more specialized journal,
such as the Physical Review B, after the points listed below have been
addressed by the authors.

第二个审稿人
In this manuscript, the authors discuss ******. Their findings seem valid
and are  well presented. In my opinion their findings carry enough significance
and would be of interest to a diverse community. Therefore I recommend
the manuscript to be published in PRL.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

» 抢金币啦!回帖就可以得到:

查看全部散金贴

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

pjstang

木虫 (著名写手)



小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
14楼: Originally posted by stone1235617 at 2015-08-25 13:10:22
不像是据稿。因为跟了第二段

If you feel that you can overcome or refute the criticism, you may
resubmit to Physical Review Letters. If you resubmit to PRL, we are
likely to seek the advice of ne ...

早贴第二段撒。
无论如何,编辑的意思是审稿人(both)第一段都是泛泛而谈的宏观评价,比如是否适合PRL,是否有BROAD interests等等。他们不是那么看重(感觉因为编辑对这方面把握更好),这里我感觉他说的是第一个审稿人的第一段的批评意见他们可能不是那么认可。因为第二个审稿人的第一段没有太多挑理的地方。
编辑的重点是你要回复好审稿人提出的具体问题。

PS,这种关键时刻需要散金币攒RP。楼主好运
15楼2015-08-25 13:16:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

道也

银虫 (小有名气)



stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
意思是拒稿
4楼2015-08-25 11:32:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

pjstang

木虫 (著名写手)


12楼2015-08-25 12:23:49
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

stone1235617

木虫 (正式写手)


引用回帖:
12楼: Originally posted by pjstang at 2015-08-25 12:23:49
拒搞

不像是据稿。因为跟了第二段

If you feel that you can overcome or refute the criticism, you may
resubmit to Physical Review Letters. If you resubmit to PRL, we are
likely to seek the advice of new referees and/or the old referees if
available. With any resubmittal, please include a summary of changes
made and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms.

到底是第一个referee的第一段不convincing 还是第二个referee的第一段不
convincing 呢?
14楼2015-08-25 13:10:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

jlx_

金虫 (著名写手)



小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
也就是你遇到同行了吧,不想让你发文章呗,不然一般地还真不知道你引用的某一篇文章具体说的什么
我曾经也遇到过,说一点没有创新,分别有人在某年用了A方法研究了X然后某年有人用了B方法研究了Y,可我用的是A+B研究的M啊,有关系但是关系很大么?然后编辑直接把那人给忽略了
17楼2015-08-26 16:23:48
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
简单回复
dmbb2楼
2015-08-25 11:29   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2015-08-25 11:30   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
a
frankfh5楼
2015-08-25 11:36   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2015-08-25 11:39   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
假大空7楼
2015-08-25 11:43   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
tzynew8楼
2015-08-25 11:55   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2015-08-25 11:56   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
icebergwu10楼
2015-08-25 12:02   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2015-08-25 12:16   回复  
stone1235617(金币+1): 谢谢参与
xhmaohan13楼
2015-08-25 12:27   回复  
guowinboy16楼
2015-08-25 13:16   回复  
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 stone1235617 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见