| 查看: 10721 | 回复: 18 | |||
| 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 | |||
[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» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 投稿 |
» 猜你喜欢
今天系统多次维护，明天很可能放榜！
已经有5人回复
-
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有74人回复
-
岩土工程学报什么时候才能终审完呐
已经有4人回复
-
时间戳又变了8-15
已经有25人回复
-
2027广东省杰青
已经有6人回复
-
快农历七夕节了，轻松一下，男人悄悄话，女施主请不要进来。
已经有3人回复
-
哪位老哥知道今年的国自然具体哪一天放榜？
已经有9人回复
-
咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否
已经有26人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有16人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有12人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 投Physical Review Letters，今天发现文章的名字被改了一个单词
已经有2人回复
- 投 the rournal of Physical Chemistry C 经验
已经有1人回复
- 投了会议abstract，还能否投PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS么
已经有4人回复
- 我投PHYSICAL REVIEW 杂志二审这个状态是不是肯定没希望了啊？
已经有1人回复
- 投Physics letters a 被拒的文章能否改投Physical review a
已经有1人回复
- 请问SENSORS AND ACTUATORS A-PHYSICAL上投一篇文章版面费多少
已经有7人回复
- 投Physical Review E编辑给的意见介于大修和拒稿之间，修改后录用的几率有多大
已经有56人回复
- 最近要投physical review A, 求WORD的模版！
已经有4人回复
- 投Physical review e都6天了还在with editor
已经有16人回复
- 前天投了Physical Reveiw A, 一直是with editors
已经有6人回复
- 那位投过The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 这个杂志？
已经有9人回复
- 谁投过European Physical Journal Plus？
已经有2人回复
- 投Physical Review Letters审稿人建议改投Physical Review
已经有37人回复
- Physical Review A 拒稿，改投求助！
已经有10人回复
- 投Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B
已经有2人回复
- 投physical review e被拒
已经有3人回复
- 投physical review e 上传pdf文件行吗？
已经有0人回复
- 投physical review E时的图片处理
已经有3人回复
★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
啸小是猪: 金币+1, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢 2015-11-25 07:28:32
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
啸小是猪: 金币+1, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢 2015-11-25 07:28:32
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
5楼2015-11-25 06:48:46
15929731947
新虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 27 (小学生)
- 金币: 1114.5
- 散金: 1893
- 红花: 20
- 帖子: 1567
- 在线: 371.5小时
- 虫号: 3135794
- 注册: 2014-04-14
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 声学
【答案】应助回帖
★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
啸小是猪: 金币+1, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢 2015-11-25 07:29:22
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
啸小是猪: 金币+1, ★★★很有帮助, 谢谢 2015-11-25 07:29:22
|
好高级，不过貌似第一个人还是持有大修的态度，两个人都对你的创新性给予肯定，而对其一般应用性不确定特别是第二个人貌似很肯定不能应用于其他...但是编辑好像没有给重投的机会，申诉成功几率有点渺茫吧 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
3楼2015-11-25 06:41:56
wmwyx
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 9725.1
- 散金: 6741
- 红花: 21
- 沙发: 38
- 帖子: 34199
- 在线: 974.9小时
- 虫号: 1194344
- 注册: 2011-01-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 结构工程
4楼2015-11-25 06:43:46
6楼2015-11-25 07:40:53
