 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 7649 | 回復(fù): 30 | |||
| 本帖產(chǎn)生 1 個(gè) SEPI ，點(diǎn)擊這里進(jìn)行查看 | |||
| 當(dāng)前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點(diǎn)擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
zn328754293金蟲(chóng) (著名寫(xiě)手)
|
[交流]
論文前幾天接受了(包含據(jù)稿催稿小修郵件) 回報(bào)小木蟲(chóng),說(shuō)說(shuō)經(jīng)歷,給新手一點(diǎn)參考 已有21人參與
|
||
|
本人第一次投文章, 以前也沒(méi)投過(guò)中文的, 壓根就不知道投稿啥情況, 這次直接寫(xiě)了篇英文的, 給老師看, 老師一票否決, 沒(méi)啥新意, 如果我要投, 不要掛他名字. 所以, 我準(zhǔn)備了準(zhǔn)備, 就投稿了. 第一次投Elsevier上的一個(gè)2.0多的刊物, 三個(gè)審稿人, 一個(gè)說(shuō)不適合此刊, 另一個(gè)說(shuō)語(yǔ)法拼寫(xiě)錯(cuò)誤太多, 好多概念沒(méi)寫(xiě)清, 提了好多改的, 第三個(gè)也是覺(jué)得沒(méi)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(xiě)錯(cuò)誤語(yǔ)法錯(cuò)誤改了改, 一些專業(yè)術(shù)語(yǔ)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(xué)了好多, 覺(jué)得這些審稿人太厲害了, 一下就看中要害. 所以認(rèn)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(wú)所謂了, 第一次嘛, 只要是SCi咱就覺(jué)得OK了. 認(rèn)真修改了, 唯一的就是真正體會(huì)到改參考文獻(xiàn)格式的痛苦了, 我的文章引了50篇的文獻(xiàn), 改的那叫個(gè)痛苦啊. 不說(shuō)了, 都是淚, 在6月29號(hào)提交了論文, 先前也在小木蟲(chóng)上看了這個(gè)期刊, 貌似投稿的人很少, 而且僅存的搜索結(jié)果顯示, 這個(gè)期刊很慢, 很拖拉, 但是沒(méi)辦法, 沒(méi)有更好的可以投, 所以就走著看吧. 沒(méi)想到, 真是這樣, 自從投了稿以后, 當(dāng)天就變?yōu)镋ditor Assignment Pending. 然后就沒(méi)動(dòng)靜了, 一直到9月, 還是沒(méi)動(dòng)靜. 當(dāng)時(shí)我就想, 太慢了啊, 做了這么多年的研究, 一直沒(méi)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(hào), 就寫(xiě)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(shuō)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(shuō)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(méi)想到一周之內(nèi)(9月17號(hào))就看到2 評(píng)論結(jié)果已經(jīng)回來(lái)了, 當(dāng)時(shí)就想, 完了, 這不是據(jù)稿的節(jié)奏么, 算了, 準(zhǔn)備改投吧. 人生總是處處充滿驚喜.... 時(shí)間是9月25號(hào), 地點(diǎn)北京頤和園里的廁所蹲大號(hào), 無(wú)聊, 用手機(jī)上網(wǎng), 突然, 看到郵箱有封郵件Decision on your Manuscript #####當(dāng)時(shí)心都提到嗓子眼兒了, 但是還是打開(kāi)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(wèn)題, 全是格式啊, 拼寫(xiě)啊, 語(yǔ)法啊, 沒(méi)有要加實(shí)驗(yàn)或者對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)處理懷疑的, 明顯的, 第二個(gè)審稿人對(duì)我的工作很感興趣, 編輯也提出了格式問(wèn)題, 我可以直接下載, 這里就不列了. 然后, 10月4號(hào)提交修改稿, 直到10月12號(hào)論文接受. 應(yīng)該沒(méi)有送外審, 因?yàn)楫?dāng)天上午我查的時(shí)候還是Editor Assignment Pending, 當(dāng)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(dāng)天也告訴了女友, 她也很為我高興. 現(xiàn)在正在準(zhǔn)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(gè)月的樣子. 可能是幸運(yùn)吧, 也說(shuō)不定. 希望大家都順利. [ Last edited by zn328754293 on 2013-10-17 at 11:09 ] |
回復(fù)此樓» 猜你喜歡
南昌大學(xué)材料專碩311分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
316求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
346求調(diào)劑[0856]
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
一志愿山大07化學(xué) 332分 四六級(jí)已過(guò) 本科山東雙非 求調(diào)劑！
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
310求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
-
機(jī)械專碩299求調(diào)劑至材料
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
070300化學(xué)319求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
08工科 320總分 求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
-
一志愿天津大學(xué)化學(xué)工藝專業(yè)（081702）315分求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
-
307求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
» 本主題相關(guān)價(jià)值貼推薦，對(duì)您同樣有幫助:
- 前幾天催搞，執(zhí)行編輯回復(fù)我。大家給看看什么時(shí)候能返回意見(jiàn)。
已經(jīng)有14人回復(fù)
- 急需文章怎樣催稿
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
- resumbission論文兩個(gè)月后收到郵件 變成小修了
已經(jīng)有42人回復(fù)
- 【解救我】大伙說(shuō)說(shuō)害蟲(chóng)是喜歡植物的哪一點(diǎn)？
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
- 有投稿SCI經(jīng)驗(yàn)的前輩說(shuō)說(shuō)，初投稿時(shí)的文章一般什么格式
已經(jīng)有20人回復(fù)
- 誰(shuí)能說(shuō)下怎么刪除自己在小木蟲(chóng)發(fā)表的主題
已經(jīng)有3人回復(fù)
- 論文修改，沒(méi)收到reviewer attachments，給editor寫(xiě)信，一直沒(méi)回復(fù)，咋搞？
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
- 說(shuō)說(shuō)我聯(lián)系外導(dǎo)的經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有5人回復(fù)
- 小修后投稿到JCED，收到封郵件，沒(méi)看太明白
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
- 說(shuō)說(shuō)自己悲劇的投稿經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有22人回復(fù)
- 被拒的感想－兼談科研的體會(huì)。
已經(jīng)有125人回復(fù)
- 第一次寫(xiě)論文的菜鳥(niǎo) 想知道大概每部分要寫(xiě)多少字啊
已經(jīng)有13人回復(fù)
- 有沒(méi)有“一催就中”的經(jīng)歷？
已經(jīng)有25人回復(fù)
- Colloids and Surfaces A 是幾區(qū)的啊 謝謝
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
- Nano letters 投稿過(guò)程及感想
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
- 也來(lái)說(shuō)說(shuō)我的第一篇SCI吧（經(jīng)歷曲折，希望給初次投稿的人一點(diǎn)借鑒）
已經(jīng)有72人回復(fù)
- 【又到論文投稿時(shí)】?jī)赡陙?lái)論文投稿的一點(diǎn)小經(jīng)驗(yàn)
已經(jīng)有58人回復(fù)
lugaoguo
金蟲(chóng) (小有名氣)
- 應(yīng)助: 3 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 690.1
- 帖子: 62
- 在線: 30.2小時(shí)
- 蟲(chóng)號(hào): 1998422
- 注冊(cè): 2012-09-13
- 性別: MM
- 專業(yè): 環(huán)境污染化學(xué)
9樓2013-10-19 09:15:12
龍的船人
銀蟲(chóng) (著名寫(xiě)手)
- 應(yīng)助: 48 (小學(xué)生)
- 金幣: 8854.1
- 散金: 108
- 紅花: 9
- 帖子: 2160
- 在線: 528.3小時(shí)
- 蟲(chóng)號(hào): 2642223
- 注冊(cè): 2013-09-08
- 專業(yè): 海洋工程
4樓2013-10-17 12:32:16
LYTL
至尊木蟲(chóng) (著名寫(xiě)手)
- 應(yīng)助: 4 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 11281.5
- 紅花: 1
- 帖子: 1062
- 在線: 179.1小時(shí)
- 蟲(chóng)號(hào): 1885847
- 注冊(cè): 2012-07-10
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 大地測(cè)量學(xué)
！哈哈，恭喜樓主 5樓2013-10-17 13:17:42
6樓2013-10-17 13:27:09
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
