| 查看: 3663 | 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
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,科目全,可+急
已经有6人回复
-
延安大学回应“副教授留绝笔信”：确已离世，正核实举报内容
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有23人回复
2楼2016-01-07 01:44:13
3楼2016-01-07 09:59:50
