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

啸小是猪

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 48
散金: 50
帖子: 48
在线: 15.3小时
虫号: 2145873
注册: 2012-11-24
专业: 金属功能材料

[求助] 投physical review letter 一审悲剧，大家看看有没有申诉的可能，现在好无助~已有4人参与

各位虫友好，最近投了一篇prl，一审意见回来了，编辑给拒稿了（not under active consideration），审稿意见如下，不知道有没有申诉的希望，还是赶紧转投其他杂志？这个工作历时将近两年，好不甘心。。。金币不多请见谅

Dear Dr. XXX,

The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.

A critique drawn from the reports appears below. On this basis, we judge that the paper is not appropriate for Physical Review Letters, but might be suitable for publication in another journal, possibly with some revision. Therefore, we recommend that you submit your manuscript elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee A
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In this paper the authors present a thorough study of XXX…..

The presented study is careful and of high quality. It is also interesting and it could be very important if the formula that the authors propose is general enough to be used as a predictive tool to obtain XXX in general atomistic environments for any XXX of interest.

My feeling is that the paper should definitely be published though I am not completely convinced that the journal in which it should be published is Physical Review Letters.

However, if the authors address adequately the following points it could become possible to recommend its publication in PRL:
1)XXX
2)XXX

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee B
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The manuscript by XXX presents a modeling study of XXX. A general formula is proposed to describe XXX.
My main concern with the proposed model is its generality. The authors indicate that the model is general, but it has only been demonstrated for XXX. It is not clear whether this model applies to XXX. I think the applicability of this model to other XXX is unlikely, given that the XXX would be significantly more complicated than that of XXX. This limits the generality and overall impact of the proposed model. Overall, the proposed model is interesting and novel, but may be more appropriate for a specialized journal due to its limited applicability. The rich information in the supplementary information should also be included into the main text as a regular article, which is probably more appropriate for this study.

回复此楼