24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (2030)
>虫友互识 (118)
>考博 (57)
>基金申请 (43)
>找工作 (35)
>论文投稿 (34)
>硕博家园 (33)
>导师招生 (27)
>公派出国 (23)
>博后之家 (22)
>文献求助 (19)
>教师之家 (18)
>考研 (17)
>休闲灌水 (14)
>论文道贺祈福 (11)
>有机交流 (6)

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 328838485 的 30 个金币

328838485

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

水博士

应助: 100 (初中生)
金币: 10532.2
散金: 1936
红花: 20
帖子: 2835
在线: 1316.9小时
虫号: 1343889
注册: 2011-07-12
专业: 水环境与生态水利

[交流] 请问遇到这种主编怎么办？申述重投还是改投呢？

请问遇到这种主编怎么办？申述重投还是改投呢？

Dear xx,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they object against publication as the language use is not appropriate. Therefore, I must reject the paper at this stage.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The paper describes the use of a UF-system to concentrate different types of milk for cheese and yogurt production. It is a comprehensive body of work and the aper contains a large body of valuable information pertaining to membrane selection as well as operating conditions for the rotating disk system. My first and foremost objection is that the aper will have to be subjected to a serious grammatical scrutiny as the style and grammar are certainly not of the standard one would find acceptable for the Journal of membrane Science. I did a number of corrections in the introduction to illustrate my point, but the whole paper needs to be edited. The figures are clear and well presented, but in some instances very difficult to follow. I made some comments on the manuscript.

The authors mentioned that all experiments were carried out in triplicate. If this was indeed done, the statistics for each datapoint should be shown in the form of an error bar, mentioning ±SED or SEM. In addition the significance of so-called "different" values obtained could the be calculated and displayed. As an example for the data in Figure 4 the authors reported "...After hot water rinsing, PES20 (22%) and UP005P (20%) had similar MPR values and P010P (15%) was still lowest,...." Were these data points the average of three determinations in three separate experiments or the average of three samples from the same experiment and were these differences statistically significant? This question could be posed for most of the data presented. The Conclusion of the paper is also rather blunt and repeats what was done without really indicating any advantages or significant features of the process.

回复此楼