| 查看: 1992 | 回复: 4 | |||
[交流]
投稿SCI期刊初审完返回修改意见求助 已有2人参与
|
|
求助大神，第一次投稿SCI（英国的一个影响因子1.0的期刊），初审完，编辑让修改，主要的意见如下，不知道如下的意见是编辑同意修完后发还是再试试哪，一般修改完之后的录用几率大吗？本人小硕一枚，水平实在有限，请大神帮忙啊。谢谢啦，由于我现在才3个金币，不能悬赏，但是还是希望大神帮帮忙呀。 Dear Mr.XXX The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments. Reviewer #1: In this work, authors discuss the XXXXXXX, and carrie on a related experiment to verify their study. Before accepting for publication, please address the following minor revisions: 1)...... 2)A short bibliography on Spacecraft made of functionally graded material is interesting for general readers. Authors are encouraged to discuss this point on the basis of the following works: Bourada et al. (2015), "A new simple shear and normal deformations theory for functionally graded beams", Steel and Composite Structures, 18(2), 409 - 423. ......... 3)........ Reviewer #2: Authors presented experimental results and corresponding analysis on the data from the experiments. However, no distinctive contributions are found the throughout the paper. It seems that the experiments they performed are based on the previous research works. The authors should clearly state the purpose/motivation of the work, the contents of the work and contributions of the work. In addition, they need to present the experimental results and discussion to support their achievement. Reviewer #3: In summary this paper describes a XXXXXXXX. A numerical model is derived for XXXXXX and its correction method is introduced. The correction method is verified with experimental data, and the analysis data shows its numerical accuracy. The manuscript as written needs several linguistic and grammatical work through overall pages, and it should be revised for publication. In any case there are a couple of points which deserve some attention and improvement. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
交叉科学部支持青年基金，对三无青椒是个机会吗？
已经有3人回复
-
国家级人才课题组招收2026年入学博士
已经有5人回复
-
Fe3O4@SiO2合成
已经有6人回复
-
青年基金C终止
已经有4人回复
-
青椒八年已不青，大家都被折磨成啥样了？
已经有7人回复
-
为什么nbs上溴 没有产物点出现呢
已经有10人回复
-
救命帖
已经有11人回复
-
招博士
已经有5人回复
-
26申博求博导推荐-遥感图像处理方向
已经有4人回复
-
限项规定
已经有7人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- SCI投稿过程总结、投稿状态解析、拒稿后对策及接受后期相关问答
已经有142人回复
- 第一篇SCI，接受了，祝贺一下。金币有限，发100。
已经有164人回复
- botanical studies 一个比较冷门期刊的论文投稿交流经验（bbrc 被拒后转投）
已经有14人回复
- SCI投稿过程总结
已经有124人回复
- 请教一下对journal of medical systmes有经验的童鞋
已经有4人回复
- 论文投稿祈祷
已经有5人回复
茫茫人海1001
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 101 (高中生)
- 金币: 10425.7
- 红花: 19
- 帖子: 2079
- 在线: 361.9小时
- 虫号: 1760470
- 注册: 2012-04-17
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 岩石学
2楼2015-10-08 21:53:39
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
感觉你这篇文章很有希望，这要看你是否有诚意修改了，三个审稿人都没有严厉的批评你的文章，只是对你文章的目前的状态做了评价： 1. 第一个审稿人感觉是想让你引用那篇文章，不知道你本来就已经引了，感觉问题不大，毕竟是minor revisions; 2. 第二个审稿人和第三个审稿人明显对文章的主旨的把握不是那么的确定，说明你的文章架构写的有些问题或者语言表述上欠缺，但这些都不是问题，没有明确的拒稿或者评判，说明还是有希望的； 3. 感觉你只要认认真真回复每个审稿人，并对文章整体的逻辑架构再确定下，修改下语言问题，对审稿人的评论做到委婉的回复，一定会有好的结果的，祝你好运 |
3楼2015-10-09 21:45:36
4楼2015-11-17 20:58:35
5楼2015-11-17 21:01:18