| 查看: 1225 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者zhengjiak将赠送您 70 个金币 | |||
[求助]
文章审稿后被拒 已有1人参与
|
|||
|
文章i是关于电子鼻判断食品质量的，给了3个人的审稿意见，大家看看我的最严重的问题在哪里啊？该怎么改呢？ Reviewer #1: This paper deals with sensory and microbiological quantity evaluation of fried fish cakes based on an electronic nose system. this research is interesting. but some revisions must be made. 1. the authors should state more detail of EN system design and information. 2. the operation of EN system should be clearly designed. 3. could the authors provide some pictures of fried fish cake? and provide more information of fish cake sample preparation. 4. some important references are not cited in the manuscript. such as professor Wang Ping, Hui Guohua, Wang Jun, etc. Reviewer #2: This submission presents the use of an E-nose to classify the fish cake samples and to trace the content of TVC based on PCA, PNN, and BPNN. However, there is no novelty showed in the detection methods, signal processing, or data treatment, and the experimental design is just common. Researches about E-nose application in the food quality evaluation spring up in large quantities in recent years. Comments list below: 1. P2, L28: "Samples from different storage temperatures could be divided into three microbial quantity classes (fresh, semi-fresh and spoiled)." Based on which standard or criteria, samples could be divided into three classes (fresh, semi-fresh and spoiled)? Also P6, L131. 2. P2, L30, in which respect, the word "quickly" could be embodied? 3. P2, L33, Why "PNN did not need training" (also P8, L175)? Fundamental steps for model estabishing should include training and testing. And the results of PNN and BPNN should be given more details. 4. P3, L45, the sentence should be modified, and also other parts in this manuscript. 5. P4, L72, the apparatus used here should be introduced, and the number of detected samples should be also introduced in each section. 6. P4, L79, "PCA" is not suggested here, which can be confused with Principal Component Analysis (also PCA). 7. P4, L82, the information about the electronic nose company should be given in more details. 8. P5, L103, the logic here might not be rational here. 9. P7, L140, the description of R/R0 is not right here. Reviewer #3: The manuscript needs extensive editing and re-writing. More details are needed in relation to the total number of samples and replicates used. More details about the chemical composition needs to be added by the authors. More details are needed in the section related with the development of the classification models, validation method used must be added. No information was provided in relation to the sensory method used. The loadings for the PCA must be added and discussed. （第三个审稿人写的好像有点不太明白，不会真的让我重写吧？） |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律
已经有46人回复
-
各位道友，我要去昆明玩几天，回来见。
已经有4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16人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有11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4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8人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有37人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有7人回复
-
filecode
已经有9人回复
-
请教兼职经验
已经有3人回复
cloudstrifer
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 7841.1
- 散金: 8189
- 红花: 15
- 帖子: 2207
- 在线: 19.2小时
- 虫号: 2946448
- 注册: 2014-01-24
- 专业: 信号理论与信号处理
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
zhengjiak: 金币+30, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-03 19:20:40
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
zhengjiak: 金币+30, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-03 19:20:40
|
第二个审稿意见是比较扎眼的，审稿人认为这篇文章缺乏创新，提到在最近几年电子鼻已有较多的文章和研究。该审稿人的意见比较细，作者按照意见改就行。 第一个审稿人认为作者需要补充一些必要的technical description，比如EN的系统设计等，还有实验的参数等信息需要阐明，此外，审稿人提到一些人的文献，建议在修改稿中一定要把这些人的文章引用。 第三个审稿人，提到re writing，通读他的意见，我的理解是作者文章条理不清晰，文章结构要做到循序渐进，不要啰嗦，力争每一块内容都是对自己主题有所贡献的。这里的rewriting我建议作者抛开原来的稿件，整体的、大局的再次给自己的文章做一个结构上的调整，注意做好承上启下、结论有力。预祝好运高中！ 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
2楼2016-02-02 13:34:44
零点漂移36
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1176.9
- 散金: 200
- 红花: 1
- 沙发: 4
- 帖子: 952
- 在线: 63.2小时
- 虫号: 13042188
- 注册: 2018-12-04
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 运筹学
3楼2018-12-10 13:47:12
|
祝福 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
4楼2019-02-12 10:29:41
