24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1951  |  回复: 5

天才+1

新虫 (初入文坛)

[交流] 求教IECR审稿意见问题已有3人参与

各位虫友,鄙人想请教一个关于IECR审稿意见的问题。
The reviews for your manuscript are included below. The reviewers have raised points that require significant consideration and revision of the manuscript before it is suitable for publication. However, with adequate response and revision, the manuscript may be acceptable for publication in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. Please give careful consideration to the reviewers’ comments and revise the manuscript as may be appropriate. The revised manuscript will be returned to the reviewers for further comments. We would like to receive your revision as soon as possible, by 02-Dec-2015 at the latest. Please note that poor English grammar and writing style are grounds for rejection, regardless of the quality of technical content. 
以上是编辑的意见
Reviewer: 1 

Comments to the Author 
The manuscript needs major revision before possible publication. 
1) English should be improved and many typos corrected 
page 4 line 33 affected instead of effected 
page 3 line 19 volumetric floret instead of volume flow 
3.3 Pliot scale instead of Pilotscale, etc, etc 
2) Figure 7 
How did you measure static adsorption capacity? 
3) Did you follow PH3 concentration at the column outlet during adsorbent regeneration? Please show such curves 
4) I guess this is a problem of adsorption coupled with chemical reaction. There are many reports in the area of carbon masks related to this topic which should be mentioned and may help to clarify the analysis of results. 
D. Friday publications 
R.C. Soares, et al, “Modeling and Simulation of Carbon Mask Adsorptive Reactors”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 34, 2762-2768 (1995). 
J.M. Loureiro, et al, “Dynamics of Adsorptive Reactors”, in Preparative and Production Scale Chromatographic Processes and Applications, pp. Chromatographic Science Series, G. Ganetsos, P.E. Barker (ed.), Marcel Dekker, 1993. 
这是第一个审稿人的意见
Reviewer: 2 

Comments to the Author 
In this paper the effect of blank 13X zeolite, or modified with CuCl2 and ZnCl2 was studied for removing phosphine from circular hydrogen of polysilicon CVD stove. As remarked by the authors, the removal of trace PH3 in circular hydrogen from stove is critical to ensure the quality of silicon products. Through this work it is shown that adsorption technologies can be every effective for that purpose. 

The synthesis procedure and characterization of the adsorbents is conveniently described. The fixed bed adsorption experiments were also well planned and the results very clear regarding the performance of blank 13X, and modified with CuCl2 and ZnCl2, especially regarding it′s regeneration in the modified forms since the economics of the process will depend on their working life. 

My major remark regarding this work is related with the regeneration studies, since it seems clear from the studies that adsorption in 13X modified with CuCl2 is chemical (Figure 9), and the modification with ZnCl2 results in a strong physical adsorption of PH3. Accordingly, after 2 or 3 cycles Cu-13X will be probably deactivated and should be throwaway increasing the economics of the process. For Zn-13X the energy needed to regenerate the adsorbent (Figure 13) will also increase the economics of the process. 

It will be important for the readers to see if blank 13X is fully regenerable even if the breakthrough time of PH3 is must lower than in the modified adsorbents. Accordingly, I suggest the authors to show also regeneration experiments of PH3 (desorption experiments with pure H2 or N2 and also the influence of temperature) for blank 13X and show effect in the breakthrough time in the following cycles. If adsorption of PH3 in blank 13X is physical with a lower binding energy force than in the case of modified Zn-13X, the regeneration of the adsorbent could be more efficient. Figure 4 shows a very nice breakthrough time of PH3 at -15oC (Figure 4) which means that a well-designed adsorption cycle can also transform blank 13X as a potential adsorbent to remove PH3 from circular hydrogen of polysilicon CVD stove. 
这是第二个审稿人的意见
Reviewer: 3 

Comments to the Author 
This MS presents the adsorption of PH3 via loading CuCl2 or ZnCl2 on 13X. I cannot recommend its publication because this MS was very poorly written both in English and technical quality. The authors must first ask a native English speaker to help in editing the MS. Also the MS must follow the standard format requirement of I&ECR. So far the reference citation is quite a mess. 
这是第三个审稿人的意见
我想请教一下前两个审稿人的意见是不是意味着修改后可以接收,第三个审稿人的意见中technical quality很差是指论文写作方面的还是研究内容及方法方面的,他没有任何具体意见,不知道怎么改。我该怎么回应这些审稿人的意见啊,请赐教。
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

daul

银虫 (正式写手)

★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
自私的猫1988: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2015-11-04 10:13:10
第三个意见是说工作本身和写作都很差,估计是他看着吃力所以没有仔细看工作吧。第一个意见提到了语言差,也有一些具体的建议。第二个更正面一些,主要提了工作方面的改进。
整体看,一是大修,二是小修(稍偏向大修),三是拒稿(估计他也拒绝再审了吧?)。编辑的决定是比较照顾的,应该是大修。
修改上主要按照前两个审稿人的意见改就可以了,尤其是语言,一定要改好,编辑也特意提到了,工作再好,语言问题多也得被拒。回复第三个审稿人,一方面说语言改好了,另一方面再把针对两个审稿人的做的修改总结一下就好了,估计编辑不会找第三个审稿人再审了。
以上

发自小木虫Android客户端
2楼2015-11-04 08:55:12
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

天才+1

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by daul at 2015-11-04 08:55:12
第三个意见是说工作本身和写作都很差,估计是他看着吃力所以没有仔细看工作吧。第一个意见提到了语言差,也有一些具体的建议。第二个更正面一些,主要提了工作方面的改进。
整体看,一是大修,二是小修(稍偏向大修 ...

非常感谢你,看得出来你很有经验,我是第一次投稿,我想再讨教您第三个拒绝再审的话编辑会不会重新找一个审稿人代替他,如果他再审再次拒稿的话,编辑会不会撇开他的意见,给予接收
3楼2015-11-04 11:48:00
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

daul

银虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by 天才+1 at 2015-11-04 11:48:00
非常感谢你,看得出来你很有经验,我是第一次投稿,我想再讨教您第三个拒绝再审的话编辑会不会重新找一个审稿人代替他,如果他再审再次拒稿的话,编辑会不会撇开他的意见,给予接收...

不必客气。我个人感觉编辑不会再找其他审稿人代替第三个审稿人,一方面是因为第一二个审稿人的报告已经非常详细了,另一方面是因为第三个审稿人其实没有提出任何具体的问题和意见。编辑既然决定给大修的机会,应该对工作本身还是比较认可的,所以很有可能一二同意后就接收了,但是还是两点要注意:一是语言 二是认真回复第三个审稿人,即便很大可能他不会再看到稿子。
4楼2015-11-04 23:28:41
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

wanlihan

禁虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
本帖内容被屏蔽

5楼2016-01-15 16:32:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

越过海地蓝

新虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by wanlihan at 2016-01-15 16:32:53
楼主的文章接收了吗?我来的审稿意见和你的很相似,在修改和忐忑中。。。。

请问你的接受了吗?我的审稿意见也差不多,不知道是大修还是小修。

发自小木虫Android客户端
6楼2018-04-17 00:04:55
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 天才+1 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] 2024年是不是明显消停多啦? +20 Cathyau 2024-07-12 31/1550 2024-07-13 14:11 by 阿凡达C
[教师之家] 迷茫 +6 水冰月月野兔 2024-07-12 7/350 2024-07-13 13:56 by mddzwo
[考研] 二战 +7 jscc. 2024-07-06 7/350 2024-07-13 10:19 by 半生梦君
[教师之家] 省自然限项 +9 Yyds55 2024-07-12 13/650 2024-07-13 09:48 by asdfgjiiuh
[论文投稿] 审稿 +3 g9522 2024-07-12 5/250 2024-07-13 08:34 by wjykycg
[有机交流] 酯化催化剂 20+3 ketty85 2024-07-11 6/300 2024-07-13 05:32 by xiaomei1031
[基金申请] 时间戳,只为图个乐子 +10 fzy721521 2024-07-11 12/600 2024-07-12 23:23 by fzy721521
[基金申请] 信息口 +4 豆小河 2024-07-12 7/350 2024-07-12 21:32 by Pickfoot
[基金申请] 大佬们,工材面上几号会评啊 +6 牛棕色左右 2024-07-11 6/300 2024-07-12 19:13 by 旋风马
[论文投稿] 论文投稿迟迟得不到回复(3个月了) +4 无。忌 2024-07-09 10/500 2024-07-12 11:01 by 17612199562
[有机交流] 油脂类产品脱色问题? 50+4 萧萧征晴 2024-07-09 7/350 2024-07-12 08:25 by luolinfeng
[基金申请] 有没有A口流体力学的朋友 +12 不是233 2024-07-10 20/1000 2024-07-12 06:11 by kobe0107
[有机交流] (求助)巴豆醇的合成 +3 vutzisen 2024-07-11 4/200 2024-07-11 20:37 by czyzsu
[论文投稿] 被退稿了还能再重投吗 +6 想毕业的QWO 2024-07-10 7/350 2024-07-11 17:53 by 214357222
[基金申请] 万人青拔每个方向都发通知了吗? +5 love394 2024-07-08 5/250 2024-07-11 14:17 by LifePursuit
[教师之家] 最近还好吗? +6 zylfront 2024-07-10 6/300 2024-07-11 08:43 by Quakerbird
[硕博家园] 老板叫硕博生写本子写项目书是普遍现象吗 +13 热忱12 2024-07-06 13/650 2024-07-11 08:02 by 投必得科研顾问
[找工作] offer求比较 +9 yychemyy 2024-07-07 10/500 2024-07-10 23:54 by nrzxcvb
[基金申请] 本子第二年有可能送到同一个专家手中吗 +17 baodingmu 2024-07-06 18/900 2024-07-09 14:08 by oooooo?o
[基金申请] 面上今年会不会很激烈 +7 豆豆吃西瓜 2024-07-06 11/550 2024-07-08 16:27 by chenpeier
信息提示
请填处理意见