 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 3 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 1179 | 回復(fù): 2 | |||
[交流]
請專家?guī)臀铱纯催@個退稿意見還有必要修改再投其他雜志嗎？
|
|
一篇文章，投稿某SCI期刊，IF在4左右。在該期刊前后投稿2次：第一次拒稿，2審稿人，一個意見比較多，指出不少問題；第二個審稿人提了幾條意見，給大修機會； 一個月后，按照審稿人的意見修改，并上傳修改說明，前不久收到退稿意見，還是2個審稿人，不過第2個審稿人應(yīng)該是重新找的。第一個人的意見比較多，指出的問題和提的建議對我?guī)椭艽�。第二個人就很不客氣，說我的工作只是一個實驗室內(nèi)部的方法標準程序，談不上論文的創(chuàng)新了。 我把2次的具體意見貼在下面，請專家們幫我分析一下，這種意見修改后投影響因子1左右的期刊還有可能嗎？深表感激！ 第一次意見 Referee: 1 1. It is felt that this paper reports routine / incremental work rather than innovative research on spectrometric techniques. 2. Presumably the intention of this paper is for the proposed method to replace the existing Chinese national method. 3. The P technique was first reported in 19XX and has been widely used since then. In the reviewer’s opinion, nothing really novel has been reported in the submitted paper 4. In the reviewer’s opinion, the two page introduction does not add anything to the sum of existing knowledge 5. The paper cites 35 references, yet not a single national of international relevant standard on F analysis is cited.For instance a five minute Google search revealed: - Surely the above should have been discussed and cited in the introduction 6. The main advantage of the P technique over the atomic absorption technique is the improved limit of detection of the Q technique, typically 10 to 20 times. For R analysis, both techniques are considered to be fit for purpose 7. The use of a 50 mg S is totally unacceptable. This may just about be acceptable for homogenised certified reference materials (often supplied as <100µ dried samples). It will not work for many S, which are inhomogeneous and often very greasy. A sample aliquot of >500 mg should be employed for R 8. It is strongly felt that the routine use of perchloric acid in routine environmental analysis laboratories should not be encouraged on health and safety grounds. Aqua regia digestion is recommended by CEN and ISO standards and is very widely employed Referee: 2 This paper intended to describe a Q procedure for M determination from U. The manuscript lacks the sufficient details of literature. It is also poorly written without sufficient justification/discussion of results and writing deviates too often from scientific writing and acceptability. Such as claiming that “V” in section “W”. It is not clear if authors mean reduction or mineralization as both acids are strong oxidizers. Further, they try to emphasize advantages of the X over Y digestion, which not the scope of the paper. If this is to be a part of the work, more experimental investigation is needed to demonstrate treatment effects on recoveries and M performance. The reference materials used for method validation are water and soil that do not represent the chemical composition of complex S. Additionally, it is clear if these materials were processed by the acid digestion procedure. Overall, this manuscript needs a major revision both in experimental work and writing. Considering the experimental details, the manuscript seems more suitable for a short paper, a technical report. 第二次意見 Referee: 1 This paper does not give significant improvement from its previous version. The writing, design and scientific discussion still lack the quality for being acceptable. 2. Please do not start a sentence with abbreviation. Page 18 of 28 line 13. 3. Appropriate references should be provided for following statement on page 17 of 28 last paragraph. 4. Page 18 of 28, 2nd paragraph Please support the statement with appropriate references. 5. Page 18 of 28. I suggest that this statement is moved to Experimental Section. There is a great confusion with literature for X detection and experimental approaches utilized in the Introduction. 6. Page 19 of 28 The introduction section requires a substantial revision. It is full of statements like above. Please be concise in writing to clarify the objective of the study. In addition, Introduction is too long for a Technical Report. Please shorten as to focus on main objectives and advantages of A for X detection. 7. Experimental Section (page 20 of 28) Please identify what T-C solution is. The last sentence “DDD” does not make any sense. Please provide detailed information. 8. Section 2.4. Sample pretreatment. This section needs clarification. I think the section title is inappropriate since the section is about sample preparation, rather than a pretreatment. In addition please do not start a sentence with a number. Please see the statement below: 9. Section 3.2.1 . This section is experimental and reductant with information giving in the Introduction (see comments on 5). I suggest the authors EEE in The experimental section to clarify and improve focus of the paper. 10. Discussion needs a focus in writing. 6 figures and 4 Tables are too many for Technical Report. Please be more specific in your statements. Much of the materials presented as results are relevant to experimental design. Referee: 2 This manuscript reports optimization of a method for F. This is obviously a resubmission. The author made efforts to address the concerns and questions raised by the previous reviewers. However, many questions were not fully addressed or answered because of the inherent defects of the study. I fully agree with the comments of the two previous reviewers and feel that the work reported in this manuscript does not warrant its publication in M. I reiterate here briefly a few key points, which support my recommendation. 1. The H method for X analysis is currently routinely used worldwide. Its advantages and disadvantages in comparison with other techniques have been reviewed a number of times. Majority part of the manuscript reads like a procedure for developing a standard operation procedure (SOP) that will be used in the author’s own laboratory. It is not an innovative research. 2. The parameters selected for the optimization experiment were not appropriate. The I and J should not be grouped and optimized with other parameters because they are not interrelated with K,L,M,N. 3. The manuscript should be thoroughly edited for English. 4. Significant figures were not correctly expressed throughout the manuscript. |
回復(fù)此樓» 猜你喜歡
323求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
一志愿北京化工大學(xué) 070300 學(xué)碩 336分 求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
352求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
一志愿東華大學(xué)化學(xué)070300，求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
-
277材料科學(xué)與工程080500求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
317求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有18人回復(fù)
-
293求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
280分求調(diào)劑 一志愿085802
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
0854電子信息求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
263求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
» 本主題相關(guān)價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 文章兩次外審后退稿修改，現(xiàn)在該怎么辦？
已經(jīng)有13人回復(fù)
- 有沒有蟲子投過計算機學(xué)報？看看計算機學(xué)報給我的審稿意見，我還有必要修改嗎？
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
- 初審?fù)烁�，郁悶著呢，大家看看是寫的不好嗎�?/a>
已經(jīng)有25人回復(fù)
- 一天退稿，悲劇，幫偶看看退稿意見吧
已經(jīng)有13人回復(fù)
- 大家?guī)臀铱纯催@個青年基金意見是幾A幾B幾C，有必要這次申請重新評審嗎？
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
- 論文被退稿，但編輯郵件說 建議作者認真修改后再投
已經(jīng)有9人回復(fù)
- 在《電子信息學(xué)報》投了個文章，有一個專家審稿意見是“建議退稿”，結(jié)果會怎么樣？
已經(jīng)有17人回復(fù)
- 編輯給的退稿信，大俠幫我看看，有多大戲？（截止時間2011.6.25）
已經(jīng)有20人回復(fù)
- 這就是退稿吧，修改后重投還可以嗎？
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
- 一個月前收到這樣的拒稿意見,修改后想再投該雜志,合適嗎?
已經(jīng)有16人回復(fù)
- 第一次投稿被拒了，大家?guī)臀铱纯催�有沒有希望修改后重投。謝謝�。。。�！
已經(jīng)有10人回復(fù)
- Talanta文章被拒，但請各位幫我看看這樣的審稿意見是什么意思
已經(jīng)有15人回復(fù)
- 國內(nèi)EI期刊，文章被退稿，審稿意見說可以修改后重投，成功率大嗎，值得嗎？
已經(jīng)有17人回復(fù)
- 地球科學(xué)部三處專家的評審意見！請大家?guī)臀铱纯矗≈x謝！
已經(jīng)有19人回復(fù)
- 被退稿，再投此雜志接受的幾率大嗎？
已經(jīng)有15人回復(fù)
» 搶金幣啦！回帖就可以得到:
-
坐標上海，誠征女友，非常 著急，私信必回
+1/461
-
福建師范大學(xué)葉應(yīng)祥課題組招收2026級博士研究生
+2/140
-
南京醫(yī)科大學(xué)生殖醫(yī)學(xué)與子代健康國重實驗室-董飛宏課題組-學(xué)術(shù)碩士招生
+1/93
-
廣東工業(yè)大學(xué)-木質(zhì)纖維素高值化利用團隊招博士研究生
+1/82
-
歡迎交流咨詢
+1/42
-
2026設(shè)施園藝作物環(huán)境調(diào)控與綠色生產(chǎn)團隊招收相關(guān)專業(yè)調(diào)劑研究生
+1/40
-
上海交大招聘高分子方向博士后及科研助理
+1/35
-
下周見一個合作者，應(yīng)該問些什么
+1/19
-
26年博士自薦
+1/14
-
南昌一本市政工程接受調(diào)劑
+1/12
-
寧波東方理工大學(xué)余鵬課題組2026年上海交大聯(lián)培博士生、博士后、科研助理招聘
+1/9
-
多倫多大學(xué) & Synetic Labs 招博士后/研究員
+1/8
-
天津工業(yè)大學(xué)雙一流高校招博士、碩士、博士后
+1/7
-
福州大學(xué)國家級人才湯育欣教授課題組2026年招收”申請考核制“儲能電池方向博士研究生
+1/6
-
湖北大學(xué)材料學(xué)招26級碩士研究生若干名
+1/6
-
大連海事大學(xué)船舶潔凈能源研究中心2026年博士研究生招生啟事
+1/6
-
211/雙一流石河子大學(xué)化學(xué)化工學(xué)院--電催化，CO2轉(zhuǎn)化
+1/3
-
【第三輪招生】澳科大誠招2026秋全獎博士研究生（納米醫(yī)學(xué)/生物材料，3月31號截止）
+1/3
-
【科研干貨】納米抗體憑什么成為實驗室“新寵”？附優(yōu)質(zhì)制備服務(wù)商參考
+1/2
-
211/雙一流石河子大學(xué)化學(xué)化工學(xué)院-電池/電催化研究方向
+1/1
2樓2011-11-25 12:33:24
3樓2011-11-25 13:21:10
相關(guān)版塊跳轉(zhuǎn)
我要訂閱樓主 qhd511 的主題更新
| 3 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 一志愿北京化工大學(xué) 070300 學(xué)碩 336分 求調(diào)劑 +4 | vv迷 2026-03-22 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +6 | 十三加油 2026-03-21 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 324求調(diào)劑 +6 | lucky呀呀呀鴨 2026-03-20 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 289求調(diào)劑 +7 | 懷瑾握瑜l 2026-03-20 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 278求調(diào)劑 +9 | 煙火先于春 2026-03-17 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料 271求調(diào)劑 +5 | 展信悅_ 2026-03-21 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 279分求調(diào)劑 一志愿211 +14 | chaojifeixia 2026-03-19 | 15/750 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085601調(diào)劑 358分 +3 | zzzzggh 2026-03-20 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +3 | Ma_xt 2026-03-17 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
一志愿華中科技大學(xué)，080502，354分求調(diào)劑 +5 | 守候夕陽CF 2026-03-18 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 304求調(diào)劑 +6 | 曼殊2266 2026-03-18 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 290求調(diào)劑 +7 | ^O^乜 2026-03-19 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿西南交通 專碩 材料355 本科雙非 求調(diào)劑 +5 | 西南交通專材355 2026-03-19 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 353求調(diào)劑 +3 | 拉鉤不許變 2026-03-20 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 環(huán)境工程調(diào)劑 +9 | 大可digkids 2026-03-16 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 生物學(xué)調(diào)劑招人�。�！ +3 | 山海天嵐 2026-03-17 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0703化學(xué)調(diào)劑 +5 | pupcoco 2026-03-17 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 收復(fù)試調(diào)劑生 +4 | 雨后秋荷 2026-03-18 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 312求調(diào)劑 +8 | 陌宸希 2026-03-16 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 考研求調(diào)劑 +3 | 橘頌. 2026-03-17 | 4/200 |
|