| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 4381 | 回復(fù): 9 | ||
| 【懸賞金幣】回答本帖問(wèn)題,作者武漢土匪哥將贈(zèng)送您 10 個(gè)金幣 | ||
| 當(dāng)前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖,點(diǎn)擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | ||
[求助]
論文被拒,編輯給了拒稿,但建議重投,有點(diǎn)疑惑,求大神提供意見(jiàn)。 已有4人參與
|
||
|
論文審稿接近倆月后回來(lái)意見(jiàn),有兩個(gè)審稿意見(jiàn),一個(gè)很不友好,而且我?guī)缀蹩床欢,感覺(jué)跟我的文章相關(guān)性不大。另一個(gè)審稿意見(jiàn)都是小問(wèn)題,完全可以解決。編輯給了reject,但是說(shuō)advise to submit again as a new manuscript considering the following reviewers' comments。這是什么意思,是讓我重新投這個(gè)期刊,還是投別的?如果還投這個(gè)期刊,審稿人會(huì)換么?中的概率大么? 另外,也請(qǐng)大家?guī)兔o點(diǎn)意見(jiàn),看看第一個(gè)審稿人到底說(shuō)的啥。 編輯的話: Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that your manuscript still does not meet the level which is requried in our journal. Therefore, once I must reject it, and I advise to submit again as a new manuscript considering the following reviewers' comments. 第一個(gè)審稿人的意見(jiàn): It is true that the authors improve the quality of the cross-section in figure 4, by the way, they must include in the paper the EDS spectra included in the answer. However, under my point of view, the paper doesn't change the main points. The critical points are just removed. Mainly in the case of impedance measurements, the authors made a comparative analysis of the diagrams measured, and although it is clear the difference with the immersion time, the measurements are really bad and they must repeat them to get valid conclusions. Respect to the hydrophobicity of the coatings, the authors still thinking that it can be useful, however the dispersion is very high, mainly at longer immersion times, maybe because of the roughness increase. I think these values don't give additional information.(我的fig.4 明明沒(méi)有橫截面的,圖八倒是有個(gè)表面圖片) |



用戶注銷(xiāo) (著名寫(xiě)手)
用戶注銷(xiāo) (著名寫(xiě)手)
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|