| 查看: 4361 | 回復(fù): 61 | |||||
zhtear99鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
|
[交流]
征集審稿意見啦~~(不怕沒獎(jiǎng)勵(lì),就怕不參與)
|
||||
[ Last edited by zhtear99 on 2012-11-29 at 23:17 ] |
論文交流 | 投稿須知 |
» 搶金幣啦!回帖就可以得到:
+5/175
+1/85
+1/63
+1/43
+1/36
+1/36
+1/33
+1/33
+1/32
+1/28
+1/22
+1/14
+1/8
+1/6
+1/5
+1/5
+1/4
+1/3
+1/3
+1/2
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
榮譽(yù)版主 (著名寫手)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +1 |
|
1) It is better to add some new references, which can make reviewer to know the recent research and the innovations. 2) the innovations should be described clearly. 3) The English should be polished by a native English speaking person. 發(fā)一個(gè)給大家參考,獻(xiàn)丑了 |
|
The authors complemented their manuscript and provided an adequate justification of the results obtained in the paper in response to the reviewer comments. I believe the revised version can be accepted for publication after the following minor revisions: 1. A clear presentation of the novelty of the paper in the introduction, especially in relation to references 33 and 34. 2. Determination of the amount (%) of D-units in the PLA chain. The D- and L-content are fundamental for the crystallization behavior of PLA and absolutely necessary in a publication like the present one. |
木蟲 (著名寫手)
|
研究方向:MEMS(microelectro-mechanical systems) 審稿意見:如下所列 個(gè)人感想:第二個(gè)reviewer看似有點(diǎn)為難我們,提了很多比較刁難人的問題,但是真的很有幫助,尤其是對于如何在已經(jīng)有了好的idea的情況下,怎么事半功倍證明這個(gè)idea漂亮。后來我們回復(fù)之后,這個(gè)reviewer還又來了一個(gè)問題,所以還有第二次答復(fù)。最終reviewer可能比較滿意吧,給我們文章打分比較高,最后被收到了雜志的年度highlight里面(顯擺一下,只有3%的文章被收錄了 )Referee report First referee's report The concept is very interesting. The manuscript is very well written. The conclusions are supported by experimental data. Of course a good job! Second referee's report This work presents a new exciting idea to develop a XXX which has good potential. Authors have however failed to demonstrate clearly the benefits of their device. In Figure 7 the slope of the straight heated and XXX heated curve look very similar except for probably initial 2-3 secs. The two cooling mechanisms look to saturate at two different temperatures. It means that the thermal resistances of the two systems are different and are hence not completely comparable. The absolute difference in final temperature is of little consequence as a different heat-sink for the straight cooled device can reach the similar final temperature with a similar time delay. The benefit of the presented device is that it will allow any MEMS device to reach its final operating temperature quickly with minimal energy loss and then maintain the operating temperature. So it is recommended that the authors comment of the initial slope of the two curves (or compare the energy lost in reaching the final state) and compare their device with respect to the straight cooled device. Authors can also consider devicing an experiment in which both the systems reach the similar final temperature and demonstrate the benefit of the XXX. Authors are also recommended to discuss the temperature jump in initial 2-3 seconds for the no heatsink and the XXX case. The authors have presented a very good overview of the existing technology. The applicability of this technology, however, depends on availability of different XXXX. Authors are recommended to present a few exemplary XXXX’s to show that this technology can be tuned for different applications requiring different turn on temperatures. The authors are requested to present a labeled cross section schematic of the displacement experiment i.e. figure 2 a. 5 mm droplet is sometimes too large for many MEMS applications. Also to achieve a better local thermal control the authors would like to design the heating array with as small a droplet as possible. Therefore the authors are recommended to discuss the effect of droplet miniaturization on the maximum displacement that can be achieved reversibly while considering the increasing effect of surface tension. The device schematic as shown has XXXX domes trapped in holes on copper plate. It is stated that the XXXX wets copper in its molten state. Then during operation of the device when the XXXX is in liquid phase how do the authors prevent the droplets to spread and wet the whole copper surface? Even if the wetting is slow, it will affect the long term operation of the device. |
禁蟲 (文學(xué)泰斗)
|
投稿和審稿的一些片段想法 1. 當(dāng)一篇文章被退稿的時(shí)候,審稿人提了一堆意見,叫補(bǔ)這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)莻(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)?梢哉f,有水平的投稿人就象高中老師一樣,能夠“猜題”,知道什么東西“在考綱范圍之內(nèi)”,什么東西不需要,預(yù)先把審稿人要做的實(shí)驗(yàn)做好,加到文章里去?梢哉f,很多文章都處在臨界點(diǎn)上,正好缺這些數(shù)據(jù)就是打不中,而就是加這點(diǎn)數(shù)據(jù)正好“及格”了!知道這些道理后,一個(gè)有用的方法是請實(shí)驗(yàn)室其他真正能夠直言的、有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的同仁提尖銳意見。導(dǎo)師在這里也起到很重要作用。 2. 投稿的奧妙,用田忌賽馬的語言來說,就是:如果用下等馬去和別人的上等馬去較量,必然打不過人家。曾經(jīng)一個(gè)學(xué)術(shù)大師告訴我,經(jīng)驗(yàn)規(guī)則是投稿者自己判斷文章的水平,要使自己的文章比目標(biāo)雜志平均水平高一點(diǎn)才能確保命中率。而“投稿者自己判斷文章的水平”是一門學(xué)問,有的人就是能夠預(yù)測未來,知道自己文章的命運(yùn)。為什么文章命中那么重要呢?有個(gè)單詞叫credibility,意思是說如果自己都不知道自己的文章應(yīng)該投什么雜志,投文章老是退稿,那么編輯又怎么能把投稿者當(dāng)一回事呢?對別人的工作要客觀,對自己的工作要客觀。很多指導(dǎo)寫作的理論書都說,寫文章的時(shí)候,作者必須“往后退幾步”,冷靜地判斷自己科研工作的意義和價(jià)值,而不能產(chǎn)生“暈輪效應(yīng)”。 3. 大學(xué)里,前十幾名同學(xué)都可以拿A,有的同學(xué)不用考試就知道他穩(wěn)拿第一名了,他卻還開夜車,搞得周圍的人很緊張。在撰寫科研論文的時(shí)候也是這樣,如果你的目標(biāo)雜志只是普通雜志,并且你文章的內(nèi)容遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過“及格”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)了,那么就是要走“保守主義”路線,也就是說要避免奇談怪論,避免oversell和controversial的東西。審稿人的審美觀是不一樣的。如果你炒作概念,運(yùn)氣好也許能中Nature。但是如果你已經(jīng)確保能中普通雜志卻還是炒作概念,那也許連普通雜志都中不了! 4. 學(xué)術(shù)論文不是新聞報(bào)道。很多兩頁快報(bào)放兩張電子顯微鏡照片,說合成出吸引眼球的納米材料,效果其好無比。但是為什么效果其好無比呢?文章里沒有說,而是說“后續(xù)研究正在進(jìn)行中”,結(jié)果過了幾年,沒有看到什么“后續(xù)報(bào)道”。這樣的文章,隨著時(shí)間的推移,越來越難被好雜志的審稿人接受了。 5. 追求的是實(shí)實(shí)在在的東西。在乎的不是“PNAS, to be submitted”,而是“Catalysis Letters, published”。雷聲大、雨點(diǎn)小就好比臺灣政客,選舉的時(shí)候空頭支票開了很多,當(dāng)選后沒有一件事情辦成的。必須要有真抓實(shí)干的精神,飯要一口一口吃,事情要一件一件做,文章要一篇一篇發(fā)。 |
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
|
研究方向:計(jì)算機(jī)輔助藥物設(shè)計(jì) 投稿雜志名稱:International Journal of Molecular Sciences 審稿意見: Reviewer 1# 1) This paper is well organized and of interest in the field, but some points must be clarified and discussed before it can be suitable of publication. 2) On page 3, line 113: "required empirical potential energy function" must be substituted with "force field parameters" since the term is wrong. A question on page 4 paragraph lines 118-121: How can the authors be sure that the most conformational analysis been made on each of these tow compounds? This point of course is crucial for a correct alignment and thus further analysis. 3) On page 7, another perplexity: How can the authors be sure that the crystallized water are indeed structural for the template protein too? Are there any experimental evidence? I suggest to repeat the docking calculations also in absence of water inside the cleft and tentatively compare the results obtained. This point of is crucial since all the discussion about the molecular interactions is linked to structural water playing a fundamental role in stabilization. 4) On page 11, figure 5: line 322-323: "tubes" instead of "ball and stick". Reviewer 1# Considering the situation that no X-ray structure of human proteasome exists, making good models of the enzyme as inhibitor-bound form help researchers conduct SAR study efficiently. The computational studies in this manuscript almost meet the demand. However, both compounds dealt with in this manuscript are covalent inhibitors. The reviewer would like the authors to state any good reason why only non-covalent interactions were considered in the calculations. Especially, TBA is believed to make reversible borate adduct form to display proteasome-inhibitory activity, and the bound structure should be more suitable to evaluate results from SAR studies on the compounds of this class. Recalculations is requested if needed. On the top of that, the following should be considered. Line 68: What abbreviation MM means (multiple myeloma) should be indicated. Line 101: "selected considered having a similar range" is grammatically incorrect. Line 227: change energy to energetically throuout: Usually, "big" is not used scientific articles like this. Change to large, bulky or other appropriate words. 個(gè)人感想:兩個(gè)審稿人給的意見都很好。兩位審稿人比我還細(xì)心,我沒檢查出來的明顯錯(cuò)誤被他們看出來了(囧ing),而且第二個(gè)審稿人對我們做的proteasome很了解。講一下當(dāng)時(shí)投稿發(fā)生的小插曲吧。這家雜志是讓投稿人自己推薦審稿人的。師姐說一般都在谷歌學(xué)術(shù)里搜一下,找?guī)讉(gè)QSAR方面的大牛就可以了。原因有二:一是大牛很厲害,可以提供很好很專業(yè)的審稿意見;二是大牛不會為難咱們這些小蝦米。然后,我就這么著,找了倆大牛當(dāng)審稿人。當(dāng)時(shí)帶我做實(shí)驗(yàn)的老師知道后,很光火,狠狠地訓(xùn)了我一頓。因?yàn)樗@家雜志的幾個(gè)審稿人很熟,如果我推薦他認(rèn)識的那幾個(gè)人當(dāng)審稿人會比較保險(xiǎn)。投完文章后,我惴惴不安,擔(dān)心被拒,也覺得自己太自以為是了,沒有事先問老師。最后,文章收到了revise。事實(shí)證明,師姐的話也是有道理的。所以說推薦審稿人的兩種方式其實(shí)應(yīng)該都可行的。 PS:IJMS是收費(fèi)雜志,IF是2點(diǎn)幾吧。我估摸著可能是收費(fèi)的原因,所以接受率比較高吧。 [ Last edited by zhtear99 on 2012-12-1 at 14:50 ] |
|
去年投稿的審稿意見: Reviewer A: Comments for Reviewer's Assessment: The quality of English writing is very poor and the document must be revised by an native english speaking person. See my remarks in the enclosed file. Comments for the Authors: Interesting paper with a good patent review. The document requires major modifications and answers to my remarks as proposed in the enclosed file. Reviewer B: Comments for Reviewer's Assessment: The authors review approaches for addressing naphthenic acid corrosion, including usage of inhibitors, solvent extraction, chemical conversion, thermal treatment, and hydrotreatment. The review covers an important topic that will be of interest to the journals' readership and focuses upon patents between 2000 and 2011. Whilst the manuscript provides a summary of the methods employed, it does not provide much detail, making it harder for the reader to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each. The reviewer would recommend providing some additional description to strengthen the manuscript. |
榮譽(yù)版主 (文學(xué)泰斗)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +201 |
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
榮譽(yù)版主 (文學(xué)泰斗)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +201 |
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
榮譽(yù)版主 (文學(xué)泰斗)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +150 |
超級版主 (文學(xué)泰斗)
至尊木蟲 (著名寫手)
至尊木蟲 (著名寫手)
送鮮花一朵
有看過的,挪用不![]() [ Last edited by 古可ぷ on 2012-11-29 at 19:55 ] |
榮譽(yù)版主 (文學(xué)泰斗)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +201 |
至尊木蟲 (著名寫手)
鐵桿木蟲 (著名寫手)
榮譽(yù)版主 (知名作家)
鐵桿木蟲 (職業(yè)作家)
木蟲 (著名寫手)
榮譽(yù)版主 (文壇精英)
榮譽(yù)版主 (知名作家)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +133 |
至尊木蟲 (知名作家)
實(shí)習(xí)版主 (文壇精英)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +12 |
實(shí)習(xí)版主 (文壇精英)
![]() |
專家經(jīng)驗(yàn): +12 |
鐵桿木蟲 (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211 初試270分 求調(diào)劑 +3 | 谷雨上岸 2026-03-23 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 070300,一志愿北航320求調(diào)劑 +3 | Jerry0216 2026-03-22 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 269專碩求調(diào)劑 +6 | 金恩貝 2026-03-21 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +6 | ytter 2026-03-22 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考博] 招收博士1-2人 +3 | QGZDSYS 2026-03-18 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 085600材料與化工306 +4 | z1z2z3879 2026-03-21 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +4 | 要好好無聊 2026-03-21 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 【考研調(diào)劑】化學(xué)專業(yè) 281分,一志愿四川大學(xué),誠心求調(diào)劑 +11 | 吃吃吃才有意義 2026-03-19 | 11/550 |
|
|
[考研] 279求調(diào)劑 +5 | 紅衣隱官 2026-03-21 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 材料與化工(0856)304求 B區(qū) 調(diào)劑 +3 | 邱gl 2026-03-21 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 307求調(diào)劑 +3 | wyyyqx 2026-03-17 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 265求調(diào)劑 +3 | Jack?k?y 2026-03-17 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 299求調(diào)劑 +6 | △小透明* 2026-03-17 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 化學(xué)求調(diào)劑 +4 | 臨澤境llllll 2026-03-17 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 304求調(diào)劑 +6 | 曼殊2266 2026-03-18 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 南京大學(xué)化學(xué)376求調(diào)劑 +3 | hisfailed 2026-03-19 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 321求調(diào)劑 +9 | 何潤采123 2026-03-18 | 11/550 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿吉林大學(xué)材料學(xué)碩321求調(diào)劑 +11 | Ymlll 2026-03-18 | 15/750 |
|
|
[考研] 288求調(diào)劑,一志愿華南理工大學(xué)071005 +5 | ioodiiij 2026-03-17 | 5/250 |
|
|
[論文投稿] 有沒有大佬發(fā)小論文能帶我個(gè)二作 +3 | 增銳漏人 2026-03-17 | 4/200 |
|