24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

wangjing140

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 12
帖子: 10
在线: 7.2小时
虫号: 3830524
注册: 2015-04-21
专业: 光学

[求助] 第一篇LPL的论文，审稿人意见我看不懂要怎么修改，求帮忙分析一下已有2人参与

1. Scientific soundness of the work and lack of serious scientific
mistakes (1—9) 6
2. Scientific novelty and significance of the presented results (1—9) 4
3. Necessity of a quick publication (1—9) 4
4. General interest for wide readers (1—9) 5
5. Quality of the presentation (1-9) 5
6. Quality of the English (1-3 - not acceptable, 4-6 - needs minor
revision, 7-9 – ok) 7
7. Recommendations: c) serious revision is required
d) redirect to Laser Physics as
not requiring urgent publication

1. The research topic on “electromagnetic multi-Gaussian Schell model in
atmospheric turbulence” has been reported in other published article,
for example in the following reference [1], but the authors did not
mention in the text, also did not cite. The authors should elaborate on
their differences.

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

1楼 2015-10-03 11:50:48

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

wangjing140

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 12
帖子: 10
在线: 7.2小时
虫号: 3830524
注册: 2015-04-21
专业: 光学

各位大神帮个忙吧！！！！！脑子现在都蒙圈了

，编辑的回复如下：帮个忙吧
The independent referees of your article entitled "Spreading of a
tunable random electromagnetic beam in turbulent atmosphere" have
already looked through your manuscript. Both of them have written to me
that in their opinion your the article should be revised and reworked in
order to be published.
Please see their remarks below.

Please upload your reworked article on your Personal Page in in the
Submission System at our website as soon as possible.
Please, upload together with the revised version your answers to the
criticism and the description of made changes in the text.

After that I will forward your updated article to your referees for
further reviewing process.

Sincerely,
Alexander Yevseyev
Laser Physics Letters Staff Editor

*************************************************************************
1. Scientific soundness of the work and lack of serious scientific
mistakes (1—9) 6
2. Scientific novelty and significance of the presented results (1—9) 4
3. Necessity of a quick publication (1—9) 4
4. General interest for wide readers (1—9) 5
5. Quality of the presentation (1-9) 5
6. Quality of the English (1-3 - not acceptable, 4-6 - needs minor
revision, 7-9 – ok) 7
7. Recommendations: c) serious revision is required
d) redirect to Laser Physics as
not requiring urgent publication

1. The research topic on “electromagnetic multi-Gaussian Schell model in
atmospheric turbulence” has been reported in other published article,
for example in the following reference [1], but the authors did not
mention in the text, also did not cite. The authors should elaborate on
their differences.

[1] G. Wu, H. Zhou, and T. Zhao, “Propagation properties of
electromagnetic multi-Gaussian Schell model beams propagating through
atmospheric turbulence,” Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 64(6),
826-831 (2014).