| 查看: 3496 | 回复: 2 | |||
[交流]
OE论文被拒了，审稿人意见比较中肯，但编辑直接拒了怎么办，求助！ 已有2人参与
|
|
各位虫友好，第一次求助，希望大家多多帮助，非常感谢~ 我是8月28日投的Optics Express，第一个审稿人9月25号给出了审稿意见，第二个审稿人截止审稿日期一直没给审稿意见，编辑一直等审稿人，结果又等了一个多月到11月10号没给审稿意见，编辑直接参考第一个审稿人的意见给拒稿了，看了审稿人的意见感觉审稿人的意见比较中肯，自己也知道有些问题是自己表述不详细或不清楚造成的，不知道有没有必要再申诉一下，希望各位资深虫友提些建议，感激不尽！ Dear Dr. ***: We regret to advise you that your manuscript has not been accepted for publication in Optics Express. The reviewer comments are included below. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Optics Express. If you have any questions, please contact the journal assistant at opex@osa.org. We hope that we will be able to serve you in the future. Sincerely, Yoonchan Jeong Associate Editor, Optics Express --------------------------- Reviewer 1: This is an interesting paper describing a way of numerically optimising a sub-diffraction-limited optical needle. In general the work seems correct and is well described and set into context. In my opinion, the work is somewhat incremental, the primary novelty being in the precise form of optimisation model. The concept has been previously reported and the actual algorithm used is from Matlab. While the optimisation model are novel and useful to other researchers, I do not feel the manuscript “reports important new science”. The authors demonstrate several needles, all of which have a FWHM of λ/3. However, in the case of a lens operating in a medium of refractive index n=1515 and a 40μm diameter lens with focal length 6μm, as used here, the NA is 1.45, and thus the diffraction limit is λ/2NA = λ/2.9. In this case, the spots are only very slightly sub-diffraction-limited and are not very impressive. The authors should explain why they used spots so close to the diffraction limit. In addition to the above points, I have a number of other suggestions which I think the authors should address to improve the paper before publication. In the middle of page 5, paragraph 1, the authors say “…the axial side lobes around the optical needle is minimized, in other words, the optical needle contains a significant fraction of the total light energy.” This statement is incorrect, as it implies that the energy is distributed in the z direction. In fact, every z plane should contain equal light energy. The needle would contain a significant fraction of the total energy if the RADIAL side lobes were minimised. In their description the genetic algorithm, the authors say that they “reinsert the reserved population to the initial population” without saying where the reserved population comes from. I assume they are referring to the best performing individual from the previous generation, preserved under the “elite selection strategy”, but this is not clear. The authors should clarify this. Finally it would be helpful if the authors could comment on whether the optical needles they show in fig 2 have any sidebands in the region r>2μm. I suspect that, as the spots are only slightly sub-diffraction-limited, they do not have any significant side lobes but this should be explicitly stated. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
研究生做的很差，你们会让毕业吗？
已经有9人回复
-
求碳排放博导；方向是LCA、生命周期可持续发展以及碳排放
已经有7人回复
-
2026博士申请求助
已经有4人回复
-
2026博士或科研助理转27年博士
已经有7人回复
-
急招2026年9月份入学博士
已经有3人回复
-
26申博
已经有3人回复
-
申博自荐
已经有7人回复
-
26年博士申请自荐-电催化
已经有7人回复
-
2026年博士申请求捞
已经有3人回复
-
国自科送审了吗
已经有11人回复
2楼2016-01-07 01:44:13
3楼2016-01-07 09:59:50