| 24小時(shí)熱門版塊排行榜 |
| 查看: 2458 | 回復(fù): 15 | ||||
linsoklove金蟲 (著名寫手)
|
[求助]
各位幫我分析理解一下審稿意見,讓我知道該怎么回答 已有4人參與
|
|
今天終于收到了審稿意見,但是由于英文不太好,也由于太過于緊張了吧,現(xiàn)在一臉茫然。還希望各位幫我分析一下該如何回答。審稿意見如下: Comments from the editors and reviewers: -Reviewer 1 - Strengths: The problem shown in the manuscript is interesting and well defined. The solving method may be interesting for other researchers. The application of results may lead to increase heat transfer capabilities which is within the scope of the Journal. The CFD simulation is compared with some experimental results. Most of the model parameters are explained. Weaknesses: The main interest for readers would be the simulation method which is described, but some more details could be given such as mesh details (the picture is informative, but number of cells, cell and shape in all regions could be given explicitly). The comparison with the experiment is shown only for offset angle, is it possible to address also at least qualitatively the thickness of the layer? Maybe for one case only but some remarks could be important for other researchers. The minimal flow for sur wetting could be simulated using this method? There is a small mistyped number in Fig 3b experiment shall be 200 instead of 100. -Reviewer 2 - Dear Author, This is well-written article that does identify an important gap in xxxx. There has been a few researches on xxxx reported in open literature. However, the article would be significantly improved with the addition of more review of the xxxx. This is because the review of the literature is not thorough for study of xxxx; because the author only referred to two articles which were published in 2014 and 2007, which has a big gap almost 10 years. The author did not critically review xxxx in the Introduction. This helps to show that this parameter is important to characterize xxxx. The details of my comments and suggestions are attached with this reviewer comments. |
金蟲 (著名寫手)
金蟲 (著名寫手)
榮譽(yù)版主 (文壇精英)

榮譽(yù)版主 (文學(xué)泰斗)
還沒想好
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +14 |
| 第一個(gè)審稿人的意見比較專業(yè)和具體,第二個(gè)審稿人的意見相對(duì)籠統(tǒng),主要針對(duì)引言,要求增加引用的文章數(shù)量。建議樓主貼出不懂的部分,以便進(jìn)行有針對(duì)性的回答。 |

金蟲 (正式寫手)
| 看意見,只要是能把審稿人1給說服了,問題就不大,多和導(dǎo)師商量一下怎么從專業(yè)的角度回應(yīng)審稿人1。審稿人2給的意見很宏觀,個(gè)人感覺可能是你行文的問題,沒有在introduction里把自己的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)突出出來,還有就是引用的文獻(xiàn)不夠,2的意見相對(duì)好改。全文改好后,建議最后完善下abstract,一陣見血地點(diǎn)出innovation,讓人能一下子抓到你的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。只要你努力去改了,審稿人和編輯會(huì)看到你的誠(chéng)意的,加油祝福! |

金蟲 (著名寫手)
金蟲 (著名寫手)
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 一志愿085600中科院寧波所276分求調(diào)劑 +4 | 材料學(xué)257求調(diào)劑 2026-03-28 | 5/250 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 085701環(huán)境工程求調(diào)劑 +11 | 多久上課 2026-03-27 | 12/600 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿鄭州大學(xué),080500學(xué)碩,總分317分求調(diào)劑 +10 | 舉個(gè)栗子oi 2026-03-24 | 11/550 |
|
|
[考研] 材料化工340求調(diào)劑 +3 | jhx777 2026-03-30 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 材料與化工272求調(diào)劑 +21 | 阿斯蒂芬2004 2026-03-28 | 21/1050 |
|
|
[考研] 375求調(diào)劑 +6 | 雨夏整夜 2026-03-29 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 081200-11408-276學(xué)碩求調(diào)劑 +6 | 崔wj 2026-03-26 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 11408軟件工程求調(diào)劑 +3 | Qiu學(xué)ing 2026-03-28 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 081200-314 +3 | LILIQQ 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 340求調(diào)劑 +5 | jhx777 2026-03-27 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 330一志愿中國(guó)海洋大學(xué) 化學(xué)工程 085602 有讀博意愿 求調(diào)劑 +3 | wywy.. 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +4 | AZMK 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿211院校 344分 東北農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)生物學(xué)學(xué)碩,求調(diào)劑 +5 | 丶風(fēng)雪夜歸人丶 2026-03-26 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 272求調(diào)劑 +7 | 腳滑的守法公民 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考博] 26申博 +3 | 加油沖啊! 2026-03-26 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 復(fù)試調(diào)劑,一志愿南農(nóng)083200食品科學(xué)與工程 +5 | XQTJZ 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 308求調(diào)劑 +7 | 墨墨漠 2026-03-25 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 298調(diào)劑 +3 | jiyingjie123 2026-03-27 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿吉林大學(xué)材料與化工303分求調(diào)劑 +4 | 為學(xué)666 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 086003食品工程求調(diào)劑 +6 | 淼淼111 2026-03-24 | 6/300 |
|