 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 7572 | 回復(fù): 36 | |||
| 當(dāng)前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
[求助]
SCI 審稿結(jié)果serious modification，怎么辦？ 已有2人參與
|
|||
|
各位大俠們， 小弟本科僧大三，專業(yè)木材科學(xué)與技術(shù)，好不容易掙扎出篇論文，導(dǎo)師不給錢，只讓讓投個不收費的SCI，本來就沒有經(jīng)驗，就胡亂投了個雜志，后來才知道是我們行業(yè)里面排第二的雜志。Holzforschung, 德國的一個期刊，International Journal of the Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Wood，影響因子1.748，大三類，小二類（小一類只有一種雜志），無審稿費（確實）無版面費（聽導(dǎo)師說的，畢竟沒錄用，誰知又木有）。 審稿時間正好一個月，結(jié)果是serious modification.是要大修的意思吧，小弟第一次投sci,直到投稿前一點的概念都木的，只知道要網(wǎng)上提交、要寫成英語的。 編輯的意思是：讓大修，有兩個審稿人， 其中一人沒有讓通過。我的文章的情況是，自己一篇那個雜志上的文章也木有引用，（一是我們學(xué)校下不了那雜志的文章，一是根本木有經(jīng)驗（關(guān)于引用方面的，大家都懂得））然后編輯給我的附件是1.調(diào)整文中圖的排列方式；2.給了8篇他們雜志近些年發(fā)表的一些和我的manuscript很接近的文章，意思是讓我引用。 當(dāng)時網(wǎng)站上要填至少一個審稿人，我填了個“算是在陶瓷”的professor,不知那雜志編輯有沒有聯(lián)系那professor.引用了那個professor的兩篇文章。 兩個reviewer的意見，一個基本上算是“好話”，提了些小問題，感覺還是比較好回答的，還說我插圖的質(zhì)量好（3維矢量圖片），最后花了一大段說我的英語差。（好桑心，〒_〒）。但總體這審稿人感覺就是打醬油那種，給我的letter很短，1/3 A4質(zhì)那么長。 另外一個第一句就說我的英語差（又桑心了，〒_〒）。但是后面確確實實都是說的我的文章中的問題。他說的文章并不novel(不同的角度來看不同的結(jié)果),然后說我的處理過程中有些他認(rèn)為重要的東西沒有體現(xiàn)，還有一堆一堆非常非常具體的問題，讓人感覺這人絕對是這個領(lǐng)域的專家，其實我做的是木材干燥中建模，主要是解1維的parabolic partial differential equation.他對這里面的問題似乎清清楚楚。感覺不好對付。請問大家又木有什么經(jīng)驗可以傳授傳授的？ 在回復(fù)editor的信中和回復(fù)reviewer的信中可以有一些客套的與文章木有神馬關(guān)系問題嗎？ 比如我想問：為什么貴雜志在出版時要把矢量圖轉(zhuǎn)成tiff圖呢，這樣會嚴(yán)重影響圖片打印的質(zhì)量？ 對那個第二個審稿人（因為不知是誰）可否詢問跟著文章有些關(guān)系但和這篇paper無關(guān)的問題，并在回復(fù)中寫下e-mail,然后“wish I can hear from you”.這個問題一是已經(jīng)困惑我很久了，學(xué)校里面老師回答得都不好；二是感覺這樣水平的reviewer差不多才能解決。（我想單獨把這個問題拿出再寫一篇呢）。。不知這些想法是否合理，請大家多多指點啊。。。 感激不盡，感激涕零 把editor的letter附下，大家給點參考意見。。。實在木有經(jīng)驗。。 Dear Mr. ****, Thank you again for submitting your manuscript Manuscript ID: HOLZ.********* Title: "Mathematical Modeling of Moisture Transfer in Masson Pine Lumber Drying Process" to Holzforschung. Your manuscript has been reviewed and requires serious modifications prior to acceptance. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter. One of the reviewers is for rejection. My preliminary editorial requests are presented in the appendix "2013.0077-better-Figures--recent-quotations-05.06.13.doc". Please read and follow the Editorial Guidelines (Instructions to the authors). No numbering of the chapters are needed. More recent quotations concerning drying are also requested. I will take the final decision after reading your essentially improved revision. ____________________________________________________________________________ I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. The revised paper needs to be submitted within 60 days from now. To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holz and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts Awaiting Revision". Under "Actions", click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision. You may also click the below link to start the revision process (or continue the process if you have already started your revision) for your manuscript. If you use the below link you will not be required to login to ScholarOne Manuscripts. http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holz?URL_MASK=6K3s72scfbc2h4cKN When submitting your revised manuscript, you should also respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s). Please add 1. a point-by-point reply to the reviewers' comments, 2. and/or a rebuttal against each point that is being raised. You will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) under File Upload - File Designation - Author's Response to Reviewer/Editor Critique. Reply to the reviewer(s)' comments is mandatory; all revised manuscripts without reply will be sent back to the author. You will be unable to make your revision on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using underlined or colored text. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload and submit it through your Author Center. Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. You may delete these files or keep them. Please pay attention to the order of your uploaded files: the first one is the reply to the reviewer(s)' comments, followed by the revised manuscript, and, if applicable, Tables and Figures, and Supplementary Material. If you decide to keep the original files, these must be the last ones in the order of your uploaded files. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Holzforschung. I look forward to receiving your revision. Kind regards, Oskar Faix Editor in Chief, Holzforschung - International Journal of the Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Wood Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: _____________________________________________________________ Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The work has some positive aspects, though the novelty is not high. The authors present a wood drying model to describe the drying of pinus massionana. The model contains many simplifications, but nevertheless the derivation seems to be quite rigorous and the analysis of the results seems to be sound. Page 7, line 56 - what does MDF have to do with this work? Page 5, lines 8-28 - there is a need for a more complete description of the experimental design and the actual raw data acquisition and treatment. If that has been described in a previous publication, a reference should be provided. Page 16 - Figure captions need improvement and clarity. Figure quality is good, but I do not think all figures are needed. Perhaps, the figures should be merged for a more space-saving presentation. Last but not least, the manuscript requires major language related overhaul. At some points, the text reads like it came from a larger document via disjointed copy-and-paste process. The recent literature is not quoted. Significant upgrading of editorial nature is a must. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The english is poor in numerous places through the text. Models of timber drying have been developed and tested in the 1980’s and 1990’s by various researchers (see a sample of references below). The analysis shown in the paper does not add anything new to these previous analyses, thus the work is not novel. Indeed, this paper simplifies the previous published models significantly to the point that it does not include important physical phenomena that I believe are important, as outlined below: 1) The previous works show that, when modelling the drying of relatively permeable timbers such pines at temperatures above the boiling point of water, as is the case in the current paper, it may be important to include vapour transport by convective flow (driven by total pressure gradient). The authors of the current paper claim to model this, but to do this properly, an additional partial differential equation is required representing the air phase so that local total pressure can be calculated. The authors do not do this, and there is no justification for why this has been excluded. Instead, the authors appear to replace the total gas pressure in Darcys Law with the vapour pressure of water. I don’t understand how this simplification is justified. 2) In the previous models, the surface is usually modelled through the use of a flux expression and equilibrium data. The current authors appear to have fitted a correlation to their experimentally measured surface moisture content versus time data and used this as a boundary condition. I’m not clear how this model is now predictive. Is it possible that the good agreement shown in Figures 6 and 7 is only possible because the experimental moisture contents at the boundaries have been used directly in the simulations? There are various points of confusion in the paper 1)Pg 6 Line 13 states that temperature gradients are small enough to be ignored (justification for not modelling the partial differential equation representing energy). But then, in section 3.2.1, the authors say temperature is a function of distance into the board and time, and present a graph of this in Figure 2. 2) The experimental procedure is unclear. I believe the authors have dried numerous samples (replicates) of timber. A given sample is sliced at a given time during drying in a destructive test to determine the moisture content profile over the sample. Numerous samples taken for slicing at different times during drying would provide a set of moisture content profiles during the drying process. Is this correct? Only one set of moisture content profiles are presented. Given the highly variable nature of timber, I wonder what would happen if another set of timber replicates were dried under the same drying conditions, and if this data were compared with the model predictions using the same model constants. Would similarly good agreement be achieved as shown in Figures 6 and 7 . Would the validation of the model be more convincing in this paper if a larger experimental data set were used? 3) It is unclear, but it appears that the liquid permeability used in the model has been fitted to previously measured data taken from greenwood (liquid permeability as a function of green moisture content and distance across the wood from the pith). During drying, the liquid permeability will change significantly at a given location as the moisture content reduces below the green moisture content and approaches fibre saturation during drying (pits aspirate and the liquid column in the wood stops being continuous). Is this effect included? On a positive note, it is good to see simulations in which variability within a timber board (permeability etc) is taken into account, since many timber drying models I have seen assume the timber is homogeous. Stanish, M.A., Schajer, G.S., Kayihan, F., 1986, A mathematical model of drying hygroscopic porous media, AIChE J, 32(8):1301-1311. Pang, S., 1998, Relative importance of vapour diffusion and convective flow in modelling of softwood drying, Drying Technology, 16(1&2): 271-281. Perré, P., Moser, M., Martin, M., 1993, Advances in transport phenomena during convective drying with superheated steam or moist air, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 38 (11):2725-2746. |
回復(fù)此樓» 收錄本帖的淘帖專輯推薦
 qita |
» 猜你喜歡
材料考研調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
270調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
275學(xué)碩081000服從調(diào)劑到其他專業(yè)，保不住本專業(yè)了
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
0710生物學(xué)，325求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
296材料專碩求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
385分 生物學(xué)（071000）求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
-
377求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
【求調(diào)劑】新能源材料本科，一志愿211，初試321
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
316求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有11人回復(fù)
-
321求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有9人回復(fù)
» 本主題相關(guān)價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 從未投過一個SCI期刊，卻被期刊編輯邀請審稿，怎么回事
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
- 投稿SCI，審稿意見求助
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
- 能發(fā)工程類計算SCI，審稿周期快，較易發(fā)表的
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
- 剛收到SCI期刊的審稿意見，如何回答審稿人？
已經(jīng)有23人回復(fù)
- sci如何回復(fù)審稿意見，尤其是改格式的審稿意見？
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
- SCI審稿人希望增加內(nèi)容，如不增加會被拒稿么？
已經(jīng)有22人回復(fù)
- 目前一篇SCI論文正在審稿中，但現(xiàn)在發(fā)現(xiàn)了文章中的一些問題，怎么辦
已經(jīng)有41人回復(fù)
- sci期刊這樣的審稿結(jié)果，大家給參謀參謀！
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
- 依大家的經(jīng)驗看，這篇SCI的審稿結(jié)果會如何
已經(jīng)有20人回復(fù)
- SCI審稿意見回來了，編輯給的moderate revision，麻煩大家?guī)头治鲆幌拢蠦B
已經(jīng)有28人回復(fù)
- 計算機(jī)類的哪些SCI期刊審稿快又容易中的？求推薦
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
- SCI文章的審稿意見，錄用結(jié)果是只給注冊投稿系統(tǒng)的郵箱發(fā)嗎，謝謝！
已經(jīng)有14人回復(fù)
- SCI審稿人不審稿，給出不匹配審稿意（研究內(nèi)容與他沖突）
已經(jīng)有29人回復(fù)
- 問一個關(guān)于SCI審稿的問題
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
- 從未投過SCI，卻被一SCI期刊邀請審稿，怎么回事
已經(jīng)有20人回復(fù)
- SCI審稿有審稿費嗎
已經(jīng)有16人回復(fù)
- 國外SCI期刊審稿（Springer)
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
- SCI雜志的審稿周期和投稿難易程度如何判斷？
已經(jīng)有20人回復(fù)
8樓2013-06-13 10:30:08
jwucn
至尊木蟲 (文壇精英)
- 應(yīng)助: 690 (博士)
- 金幣: 19810.5
- 紅花: 23
- 帖子: 16486
- 在線: 251.9小時
- 蟲號: 183097
- 注冊: 2006-02-12
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 凝聚態(tài)物性 II ：電子結(jié)構(gòu)
2樓2013-06-13 01:22:12
changh
鐵桿木蟲 (知名作家)
- 應(yīng)助: 318 (大學(xué)生)
- 金幣: 12900.7
- 散金: 888
- 紅花: 33
- 帖子: 9537
- 在線: 436.5小時
- 蟲號: 796972
- 注冊: 2009-06-20
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 構(gòu)造地質(zhì)學(xué)與活動構(gòu)造
3樓2013-06-13 05:29:47
嘯天犬
至尊木蟲 (職業(yè)作家)
- 應(yīng)助: 2171 (講師)
- 金幣: 9715.1
- 紅花: 45
- 帖子: 3962
- 在線: 302.2小時
- 蟲號: 1362468
- 注冊: 2011-08-07
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 水文地質(zhì)學(xué)(含地?zé)岬刭|(zhì)學(xué))
4樓2013-06-13 07:51:11
| 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211，335分，0856，求調(diào)劑院校和導(dǎo)師 +14 | 傾____蕭 2026-03-27 | 15/750 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
[考研] 303求調(diào)劑 +8 | DLkz1314. 2026-03-30 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 275求調(diào)劑 +12 | waltzh 2026-04-01 | 12/600 |
|
|
[考研] 266分求材料化工冶金礦業(yè)等專業(yè)的調(diào)劑 +7 | 哇呼哼呼哼 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑0703 +5 | 周嘉堯 2026-03-31 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 化學(xué)308分調(diào)劑 +13 | 你好明天你好 2026-03-30 | 14/700 |
|
|
|
[考研] 330分求調(diào)劑 +11 | qzenlc 2026-03-29 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 318求調(diào)劑 +3 | 篤行致遠(yuǎn). 2026-03-31 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 合肥區(qū)域性重點一本招收調(diào)劑 +4 | 6266jl 2026-03-30 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研]
 物理學(xué)調(diào)劑
+4
|
小羊36 2026-03-30 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿中海洋材料357 +4 | 麥恩莉. 2026-03-30 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 262求調(diào)劑 +7 | ZZ..000 2026-03-30 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 279求調(diào)劑 +12 | j的立方 2026-03-29 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085600，專業(yè)課化工原理，321分求調(diào)劑 +5 | 大饞小子 2026-03-28 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 304求調(diào)劑 +6 | 曼殊2266 2026-03-27 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 081200-314 +3 | LILIQQ 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 330一志愿中國海洋大學(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] 070300化學(xué)求調(diào)劑 +4 | 起個名咋這么難 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 285求調(diào)劑 +4 | AZMK 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 292求調(diào)劑 +4 | 求求了收下我吧?/a> 2026-03-26 | 4/200 |
|