optics express兩個(gè)審稿人 均建議大修，但第一個(gè)審稿人言辭比較激烈，認(rèn)為我的文章創(chuàng)新型不足，但是我的文章的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)跟他提到的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)不太一樣，可能是文章撰寫時(shí)側(cè)重點(diǎn)出現(xiàn)了問題。第二個(gè)審稿人是業(yè)內(nèi)小同行，提了幾個(gè)增加計(jì)算的問題

大修相應(yīng)的增加了實(shí)驗(yàn)計(jì)算，最后第一個(gè)審稿人還是拒了，第二個(gè)審稿人同意接受。編輯還是給拒絕了

I regret to inform you that your revised manuscript does not suitably address the reviewers’ concerns. Therefore I cannot accept your manuscript in its present form for publication in Optics Express. The comments from re-review are included below.

It is the policy of Optics Express to allow only one revision cycle, so any resubmission of this manuscript in revised form will be treated as a new manuscript and given a new submission date.  The Journal’s editorial board discourages resubmission of an inadequately revised manuscript.  Such papers will generally be rejected without being sent again for peer review.

想修改下摘要 介紹 題目更加凸顯自己的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)重新投，不知道有沒有機(jī)會(huì)。各位有沒有oe重投的經(jīng)驗(yàn) 返回小木蟲查看更多