24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

1楼2015-11-25 05:45:30

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

stone1235617

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 7 (幼儿园)
金币: 2526.5
散金: 1073
红花: 10
帖子: 631
在线: 754.8小时
虫号: 738191
注册: 2009-04-02
性别: GG
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

对于NOT UNDER ACTIVE 的PRL文章来说，只能走DAE 一条路了。这个时候期刊为了尊重审稿人，评审的标准发生了改变。即：从你的文章能不能在PRL上发表到PRL不发表你的文章是不是PRL的损失。这也是appeal，特别是novelty不够的comment 基本上赢不了的原因，当然如果你老板是行业超级大牛或者nobel奖可以无视这个标准。

赞一下(3人)

回复此楼

13楼2015-11-26 16:21:27

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

mangona

木虫 (小有名气)

应助: 9 (幼儿园)
金币: 58.7
散金: 6949
红花: 6
帖子: 192
在线: 822.6小时
虫号: 956076
注册: 2010-02-18
专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构

【答案】应助回帖

★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
啸小是猪: 金币+3, ★★★★★最佳答案 2015-11-26 03:01:02

两个referee其实都有generality的疑问，不过第一个更nice，所以是否generality也是作者回复的关键，第二个referee提出“ I think the applicability of this model to other XXX is unlikely”，如果作者能对这点充分展开讨论并且有信心说服referee，就可以再试试。如果referee说的是对的，你们模型无法应用到 other XXX，那就别试了，继续打架纯属浪费时间，换一个referee也是同样的意见。

另外，别在意aps旗下期刊的not under active consideration这一状态。这个和with authors没有很明显界限，不过with authors一般情况下会送回给rerefee，not under active consideration这是编辑自己把握，如果你们理由足够充分，editor还是有可能送回referee而不是交给DAE。

赞一下(2人)

回复此楼

10楼2015-11-25 12:27:09

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖