 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 7692 | 回復: 30 | |||
| 本帖產(chǎn)生 1 個 SEPI ，點擊這里進行查看 | |||
| 當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 | |||
zn328754293金蟲 (著名寫手)
|
[交流]
論文前幾天接受了(包含據(jù)稿催稿小修郵件) 回報小木蟲,說說經(jīng)歷,給新手一點參考 已有21人參與
|
||
|
本人第一次投文章, 以前也沒投過中文的, 壓根就不知道投稿啥情況, 這次直接寫了篇英文的, 給老師看, 老師一票否決, 沒啥新意, 如果我要投, 不要掛他名字. 所以, 我準備了準備, 就投稿了. 第一次投Elsevier上的一個2.0多的刊物, 三個審稿人, 一個說不適合此刊, 另一個說語法拼寫錯誤太多, 好多概念沒寫清, 提了好多改的, 第三個也是覺得沒啥新意, 所以編輯據(jù)稿. 很是郁悶, 但是還是按照審稿人的要求, 把拼寫錯誤語法錯誤改了改, 一些專業(yè)術(shù)語也改了. 附上郵件: Ms. Ref. No.: #### Title: ##### ##### Dear Mr. ####, Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it. For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Yours sincerely, ##### Receiving Editorial Office $$$$$$ Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: ##### The present study dealing with trace amounts of aqueous copper(II) chloride complexes in hypersaline solutions has been carried out in a sophisticated and careful manner. However, the content of this study is far too specific for the general inorganic chemistry readership of ####. It is therefore suggested that this study is submitted to the ##### ["which offers a forum for research on the physical chemistry of liquid solutions"] or to a journal with a strong physical-chemical focus. Minor points, which the authors should consider before they submit their study again, are: (1) line 32 (and elsewhere): ... electrolysis anolyte -- I believe it should read "analyte" (2) line 64: ... isopiestic experimental data -- this should read "isosbestic" (3) The English needs to be improved and clarified at many instances, e.g., (a) line 21 & 22: ... "are to be preferred, except log K2" ... -- I assume that this should read ... are to be preferred over published ones, except for log K2 ... (b) lines 223 & 224: ... "is in good agreement with this derived in this study ..." -- It should read ... is in good agreement with the one derived in this study (c) line 252: ... "which means that experimental data process is reasonable only using four species." -- I assume that it should read ... which means that processing of the experimental data is reasonable using four species only. Reviewer #2: The paper describes the complexation of Cu(II) by chloride ions in high concentrations and compares the new results with those previously published. The language is poor. A few examples: Singular/plural: line 63: .these electrolytes (not clear which ones) is more benign (what does it scientifically mean?) to.. line 150: .The approach used in this study are . Verbs. Line 62:..-. and determined (determine) . line 100: .the details were (are) described. line 127: ....the results are showed (shown).. line 139: .The formation constants..were calculated. Strange sentences. line 46-47: ..there was no present of CuCl4., but was this with. line 123: ..to the refinement (of the) formation constants.. line 170: . by Brugger et al., that assigning (who assigned). line 236: ..Based on those above (?) our results should be to be preferred (I cannot agree) line 251: . show that there is a few CuCl4 species (that CuCl4 is a minor species) In addition there are several chemical problems, which are not clear: Line 71: Why is the concentration of Cu(II) only approximate? Line 88:. the molar absorptivity coefficient Line126:.the absorbance matrix was reduced to restrict it to the .. Could you give the precise range of wavelengths, which were used for the calculation . Line 128: Where from comes the decision to use 0.02 absorbance units as "tolerance". I know papers, in which the standard deviation in absorbance units is around 0.001, in some cases even 0.0005 units. In fact looking at fig.2 one has the impression that a fifth eigenvector would improve the fitting on going from 0.012 to 0.008 "tolerance" (Whatever it means) units. Have the author checked whether the inclusion of a fifth component is statistically significant or not? Line 180 and following: In eq 7, K is used as the total number of wavelengths (by the way how many were used?), whereas in the rest of the paper it means equilibrium constants. Please check that everywhere the right words are used: epsilons are the molar absorptivity coefficients. The authors use molar extinction coefficients or molar absorbance (also in fig.4), which is not correct. Line 202:The equilibrium constants are defined in eq.4 as Kn (n=0,1,2), but here in the discussion and in Table 2 one finds Kn(n=1,2,3) How comes? The fact that log K2 could not be determined accurately can have different reasons: 1) The corresponding species is present in low concentrations. 2) There is a strong correlation between the parameters, especially between the epsilon value and the stability constant of the corresponding species. 3) The model used to fit the data is wrong. Does the program used for the fitting procedure separate linear (epsilon) and non-linear parameters (k values)? Does the program give a correlation matrix form which one could see how strong correlations are? Line 223: in the discussion of log K1 it is stated that the value determined in this paper is comparable to the values of several authors, but not with that of Bjerrum, differing by 0.25 log units. How about the value of Khan et al., which differs by 0.36 units? Fig.4: The molar absorptivity coefficients (y-axis) of the fig are too small and should be about a 1000 time larger. With all this, the paper cannot be reccomanded for publication. Reviewer #3: The authors report stability constants for the copper(II) complexes of chloride ions. Huge number of similar data are available in the literature and various databases, some of them are cited in the manuscript, too. The subject of the manuscript fits well ####, but the amount of new scientific findings does not support publication. The authors are right that there are big differences in the literature data, but there is no sufficient experimental proof for the highest accuracy and reliability of the present speciation. Chloride concentration was changing in a very wide range and theoretical calculations were used to obtain thermodynamic constants. The applicability of these calculations in concentrated samples is questionable. The use of constant ionic strength (e.g. perchlorate + chloride or nitrate + chloride samples) can be more reliable for given conditions. The UV absorption of complexes was only measured but d-d transition in the visible range must also be affected by complexation. 盡管據(jù)稿, 但是還是從中學了好多, 覺得這些審稿人太厲害了, 一下就看中要害. 所以認真改了. 第二次就按照第一審稿人的要求, 投到他推薦的期刊上, 是springer上的, 1.1的樣子, 無所謂了, 第一次嘛, 只要是SCi咱就覺得OK了. 認真修改了, 唯一的就是真正體會到改參考文獻格式的痛苦了, 我的文章引了50篇的文獻, 改的那叫個痛苦啊. 不說了, 都是淚, 在6月29號提交了論文, 先前也在小木蟲上看了這個期刊, 貌似投稿的人很少, 而且僅存的搜索結(jié)果顯示, 這個期刊很慢, 很拖拉, 但是沒辦法, 沒有更好的可以投, 所以就走著看吧. 沒想到, 真是這樣, 自從投了稿以后, 當天就變?yōu)镋ditor Assignment Pending. 然后就沒動靜了, 一直到9月, 還是沒動靜. 當時我就想, 太慢了啊, 做了這么多年的研究, 一直沒信心, 破罐子破摔吧, 所以就想著催一下吧, 如果拒了, 就翻譯成中文, 再投. 所以9月十號, 就寫了一封催稿信: Dear ****, I'm sorry to disturb you. My manuscript ID is ****. I have submitted a manuscript to the #### on 29 June, 2013. However, the manuscript current status is still Editor Assignment Pending now. The status didn't update since. Any question about this manuscript? Please let me know. Yours, **** 雖然說人家效率低, 但是態(tài)度還是蠻好的, 第二天我的論文狀態(tài)就變?yōu)閁nder Review了, 然后人家還回了一封郵件, 說已經(jīng)弄了, 你要等編輯的結(jié)果巴拉巴拉的.... Dear ****, I would like to bring to your kind notice that your manuscript is currently with the experts for their review. However, please be assured that you will be duly notified of the decision as soon as it has been made by the editor. Many thanks. Best regards, ***** 然后我就等吧, 沒想到一周之內(nèi)(9月17號)就看到2 評論結(jié)果已經(jīng)回來了, 當時就想, 完了, 這不是據(jù)稿的節(jié)奏么, 算了, 準備改投吧. 人生總是處處充滿驚喜.... 時間是9月25號, 地點北京頤和園里的廁所蹲大號, 無聊, 用手機上網(wǎng), 突然, 看到郵箱有封郵件Decision on your Manuscript #####當時心都提到嗓子眼兒了, 但是還是打開了, 然后盡管在那閉塞的空間, 我也感到神清氣爽….. Dear ****: We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "****", which you submitted to Journal of ***. It is apparent from the reports shown below that your manuscript could be accepted for publication after you have considered incorporating the minor revisions proposed. There are two minor style issues with your manuscript and I have noted them in a brief document (Editor's comments) that you can download. When preparing your revised manuscript, please also submit a list of responses to the comments that should be uploaded as a file in addition to your revised manuscript. PLEASE NOTE: YOUR REVISED VERSION CANNOT BE SUBMITTED IN .PS OR .PDF. IN THE EVENT THAT YOUR REVISED VERSION IS ACCEPTED, YOUR PAPER CAN BE SENT TO PRODUCTION WITHOUT DELAY ONLY IF WE HAVE THE SOURCE FILES ON HAND. Submissions without source files will be returned prior to final acceptance. In order to submit your revised manuscript electronically, please access the following web site: ###### Your username is: ***** Your password is: ****** Click "Author Login" to submit your revision. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Best regards, ***** ***** Editor-in-Chief ****** COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the 'View Attachments' link in the Action column. ***** Reviewer #1: The results concerning the thermodynamic properties of aqueous copper complexes in hydrometallurgical extraction are of high practical value and have been justified by two independent methods. The work is interesting, well organized and contains the proper References. The paper may be published in its present form but it needs minor revision as some fragments are not absolutely clear or need some corrections. Namely: Line 60: because of? Line 114: to interpret? Line 154, 156, 160, 168; the an or ån parameter? Line 201: Eqn. 7 or rather Eqn. 8? Lines 247 and 255: why is the temperature of the solutions mentioned only in the Conclusions and not in the Experimental? Line 248: between 0 and 6m? Line 260: suitable? why "to suitable"? Reviewer #3: The paper deals with an important research point. The following comments aught to improve it 1) few spelling and grammatic errors need to be corrected . Some sentences specially in the discussion section need to be rephrased to improve readability. 2) Reference list contain only 4 references 2010 and newer. Updata your reference list. 3) I cannot understand how the convolution of the spectra of the individual species have been made? elaborate and give reference. 你妹啊, 小修啊, 真的, 是Minor Revision. 而且看了下問題, 全是格式啊, 拼寫啊, 語法啊, 沒有要加實驗或者對數(shù)據(jù)處理懷疑的, 明顯的, 第二個審稿人對我的工作很感興趣, 編輯也提出了格式問題, 我可以直接下載, 這里就不列了. 然后, 10月4號提交修改稿, 直到10月12號論文接受. 應該沒有送外審, 因為當天上午我查的時候還是Editor Assignment Pending, 當天晚上就Accepted. 不容易, 博士的第一篇sci, 也算是畢業(yè)有望了吧, 當天也告訴了女友, 她也很為我高興. 現(xiàn)在正在準備第二篇, 希望順利. 這就是我的投稿經(jīng)歷, 這篇雜志的效率終究還是可以的, 從投稿到接受, 也就3個月的樣子. 可能是幸運吧, 也說不定. 希望大家都順利. [ Last edited by zn328754293 on 2013-10-17 at 11:09 ] |
回復此樓» 猜你喜歡
0703化學/290求調(diào)劑/本科經(jīng)歷豐富/工科也可
已經(jīng)有11人回復
-
南京大學化學調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有15人回復
-
292求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復
-
材料專碩調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有8人回復
-
085601材料工程找調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有17人回復
-
面上5B能上會嗎？
已經(jīng)有6人回復
-
化學308分調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復
-
化學工程085602 305分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有25人回復
-
求化學調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有11人回復
-
085602 化學工程專碩 340分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復
» 本主題相關(guān)價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 前幾天催搞，執(zhí)行編輯回復我。大家給看看什么時候能返回意見。
已經(jīng)有14人回復
- 急需文章怎樣催稿
已經(jīng)有6人回復
- resumbission論文兩個月后收到郵件 變成小修了
已經(jīng)有42人回復
- 【解救我】大伙說說害蟲是喜歡植物的哪一點？
已經(jīng)有7人回復
- 有投稿SCI經(jīng)驗的前輩說說，初投稿時的文章一般什么格式
已經(jīng)有20人回復
- 誰能說下怎么刪除自己在小木蟲發(fā)表的主題
已經(jīng)有3人回復
- 論文修改，沒收到reviewer attachments，給editor寫信，一直沒回復，咋搞？
已經(jīng)有6人回復
- 說說我聯(lián)系外導的經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有5人回復
- 小修后投稿到JCED，收到封郵件，沒看太明白
已經(jīng)有4人回復
- 說說自己悲劇的投稿經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有22人回復
- 被拒的感想－兼談科研的體會。
已經(jīng)有125人回復
- 第一次寫論文的菜鳥 想知道大概每部分要寫多少字啊
已經(jīng)有13人回復
- 有沒有“一催就中”的經(jīng)歷？
已經(jīng)有25人回復
- Colloids and Surfaces A 是幾區(qū)的啊 謝謝
已經(jīng)有8人回復
- Nano letters 投稿過程及感想
已經(jīng)有12人回復
- 也來說說我的第一篇SCI吧（經(jīng)歷曲折，希望給初次投稿的人一點借鑒）
已經(jīng)有72人回復
- 【又到論文投稿時】兩年來論文投稿的一點小經(jīng)驗
已經(jīng)有58人回復
LYTL
至尊木蟲 (著名寫手)
- 應助: 4 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 11281.5
- 紅花: 1
- 帖子: 1062
- 在線: 179.1小時
- 蟲號: 1885847
- 注冊: 2012-07-10
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 大地測量學
！哈哈，恭喜樓主 5樓2013-10-17 13:17:42
龍的船人
銀蟲 (著名寫手)
- 應助: 48 (小學生)
- 金幣: 8854.1
- 散金: 108
- 紅花: 9
- 帖子: 2160
- 在線: 528.3小時
- 蟲號: 2642223
- 注冊: 2013-09-08
- 專業(yè): 海洋工程
4樓2013-10-17 12:32:16
6樓2013-10-17 13:27:09
Champion!!!
木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 27 (小學生)
- 金幣: 2722.8
- 散金: 1477
- 紅花: 4
- 帖子: 712
- 在線: 378小時
- 蟲號: 2595355
- 注冊: 2013-08-13
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 微生物生理與生物化學
8樓2013-10-17 13:51:31
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[基金申請] 面上5B能上會嗎？ +6 | redcom 2026-03-29 | 6/300 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 一志愿南開大學0710生物學359求調(diào)劑 +5 | 兔兔兔111223314 2026-03-29 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 2026年華南師范大學歡迎化學，化工，生物，生醫(yī)工等專業(yè)優(yōu)秀學子加入！ +3 | llss0711 2026-03-28 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 學碩274求調(diào)劑 +9 | Li李魚 2026-03-26 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 394求調(diào)劑 +3 | 好事多磨靜候佳?/a> 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 317求調(diào)劑 +6 | 十閑wx 2026-03-24 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 070300求調(diào)劑306分 +4 | 26要上岸 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0856，材料與化工321分求調(diào)劑 +12 | 大饞小子 2026-03-27 | 13/650 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料求調(diào)劑一志愿哈工大324 +7 | 閆旭東 2026-03-28 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 286求調(diào)劑 +4 | 丟掉懶惰 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料求調(diào)劑 一志愿哈工大總分298分，前三科223分 +5 | dongfang59 2026-03-27 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 272求調(diào)劑 +7 | 腳滑的守法公民 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0703化學一志愿南京師范大學303求調(diào)劑 +3 | zzffylgg 2026-03-24 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0703化學求調(diào)劑 +3 | 丹青奶蓋 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 環(huán)境專碩324分求調(diào)劑推薦 +5 | 軒小寧—— 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 0854AI CV方向招收調(diào)劑 +4 | 章小魚567 2026-03-23 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 300分，材料，求調(diào)劑，英一數(shù)二 +5 | 超贊的 2026-03-24 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 一志愿北化315 求調(diào)劑 +3 | akrrain 2026-03-24 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研]
 材料考研調(diào)劑生
+3
|
黃粱一夢千年 2026-03-24 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 求老師收我 +3 | zzh16938784 2026-03-23 | 3/150 |
|