| 查看: 5884 | 回復(fù): 30 | ||||
F_Shaw捐助貴賓 (著名寫手)
|
[交流]
兩個審稿人給出了大改,但Associate Editor給了拒稿 已有3人參與
|
|||
|
Dear Dr. XXXX, Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising that we consider accepting your paper after major revision. However the needed revisions are too substantion to allow the paper to proceed without a second round of review. Please consider my rejection this version a "soft" decision. Both reviewers have indicated that they would like to see the revision and they will be invited to review the new submission. Both reviewers have agreed to be identified. XXXX is Reviewer #1, and XXXXX is Reivewer #2. Both reviewers have downloaded files in addition to the comments listed below. Let me know if you have any problems downloading this files. The one issue that must be addressed in a revision is a clear distinguition from previous publihsed papers. It is fine to document how new data supports conclusions made in prior work, but these must be significant advances and you must be clear as to why the new information either proves or disproves previous studies. Considering the extent of revision needed, I have not provided any editorial input to this version. I would be willing to help you with the revision prior to your formal resubmission. The easiest way to do this is for you to email me your revised manuscript (XXXXXXX) and we can work outside of the Elsevier system. ———————————————— Reviewer #1: The purpose of this paper, as poorly stated in lines 90-95,XXXXXX. I completely re-wrote this paper because without doing so, it would have been impossible to understand the aim of the work. Although the paper is very poorly written, it may be worthy of publication with major revisions. I have two major objections (items 1-2 below) and several recommendations for the authors. XXXXXXX ———————————————— Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented a valuable case study on XXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX. The data analysis is logical, the conclusions are convincing in general. The figures and tables are largely adequate to support the points made in the current manusript. The length of the manuscript is about right, although it could be slightly longer if the authors are going to make revisions according to the reviewer's suggestions. Major issues with the current manuscript include the following: XXXXXXXXX ______________________ 兩個審稿人提了很多意見,Associate Editor的意思是在我重投之前,可以協(xié)助我修改,工作量有點大! 各位蟲友有沒有這樣的經(jīng)歷,像這樣機(jī)會大不大? [ Last edited by F_Shaw on 2014-4-11 at 13:58 ] |
Cover_Letter |

![]() ![]() ![]() |
鐵桿木蟲 (知名作家)

| 2 |
至尊木蟲 (文壇精英)
|
捐助貴賓 (著名寫手)

至尊木蟲 (文壇精英)
| 祝福 |
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 工科材料085601 279求調(diào)劑 +6 | 困于星晨 2026-03-17 | 6/300 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 302求調(diào)劑 +9 | 負(fù)心者當(dāng)誅 2026-03-11 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩326求調(diào)劑 +6 | 墨煜姒莘 2026-03-15 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 211本,11408一志愿中科院277分,曾在中科院自動化所實習(xí) +6 | Losir 2026-03-12 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 275求調(diào)劑 +4 | 太陽花天天開心 2026-03-16 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 289求調(diào)劑 +6 | 步川酷紫123 2026-03-11 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 326求調(diào)劑 +4 | 諾貝爾化學(xué)獎覬?/a> 2026-03-15 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 中科院材料273求調(diào)劑 +4 | yzydy 2026-03-15 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 085600材料與化工 求調(diào)劑 +13 | enenenhui 2026-03-13 | 14/700 |
|
|
[考研] 0856專碩279求調(diào)劑 +5 | 加油加油!? 2026-03-15 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 本科南京大學(xué)一志愿川大藥學(xué)327 +3 | 麥田耕者 2026-03-14 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 中科大材料專碩319求調(diào)劑 +3 | 孟鑫材料 2026-03-13 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 求材料調(diào)劑 +5 | 隔壁陳先生 2026-03-12 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 26調(diào)劑/材料/英一數(shù)二/總分289/已過A區(qū)線 +6 | 步川酷紫123 2026-03-13 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 0703化學(xué)一志愿211 總分320求調(diào)劑 +5 | 瑪卡巴卡啊哈 2026-03-11 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 333求調(diào)劑 +3 | 球球古力 2026-03-11 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 材料工程調(diào)劑 +4 | 咪咪空空 2026-03-11 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 290求調(diào)劑 +7 | ADT 2026-03-12 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 308求調(diào)劑 +3 | 是Lupa啊 2026-03-12 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考博] 26讀博 +4 | Rui135246 2026-03-12 | 10/500 |
|