 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 4897 | 回復(fù): 9 | |||
| 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 | |||
詹水清金蟲 (正式寫手)
|
[求助]
修改意見是小修還是大修？已經(jīng)又返回去外審了，不懂！求教！ 已有6人參與
|
||
|
請(qǐng)教各位，我的稿件之前已經(jīng)修改過一次，第一次給的修改意見較多；這次又叫我修改第二次，下面為編輯發(fā)來的修改意見，這次不知道是大修還是小修；兩次修改回來的狀態(tài)都是revise，看不出大修還是小修；可是這次修改后，實(shí)際上自己修改的地方不多，提交后編輯又送外審了；請(qǐng)問大家我這種情況最終錄用的概率有多大��？ Ms. Ref. No.: ******* Dear Dr.******* Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Your username is: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The paper revised substantially according to the reviewers' comments. The bubble driven flow is difficult to model as the authors claimed, and a simplified model is applied in this work. Actually, there are progresses on the bubble driven flow work in the literature that can be referenced: Kaiyu Zhang, Yuqing Feng, Phil Schwarz, Zhaowen Wang and Mark Cooksey, Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of bubble dynamics in the aluminum smelting process, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2013, 52 (33), pp 11378-11390 Y.Q. Feng, W. Yang, M. Cooksey and P. Schwarz, "Development of bubble driven flow CFD model applied for aluminium smelting cells", The Journal of Computational Multiphase Flow, 2010, 2, 179-188. Note that the bubble induced turbulence play an important role for alumina dispersion. The drag coefficient in ACD is different from the free rising region. While it is ok to use a simplified model, at least the others' model development work should be fairly cited. Otherwise, the paper gives an impression that the authors want to hide their weakness, e,g. the bubble driven model is even not mentioned in their first draft. Reviewer #2: Greatly improved paper since first version. Looking forward for following publications as the work presented in this paper is only the beginning! I hope you will also be presenting that work or even better some follow-up work at the ICSOBA 2014 conference in October: http://www.icsoba.info/icsoba-2014 On second reading, I think that there is even more physic involved than you are describing in your model! In order to solve the heat transfer model, you must also solve for the bath temperature (TL) yet you are not discussing about that at all. In addition to the heat exchanged with the colder alumina particles, the bath is gaining heat from the Joule heating and is loosing heat through the ledge, anodes and metal pad. I assume that you are not solving for the local variation of the bath temperature in your model? Yet, a local addition of cold alumina particles will significantly drop the bath temperature at that location. If the bath temperature is considered constant, please comment on the impact of that simplification on the alumina dissolution rate prediction. Even more important, the liquidus temperature (Tliq) depends on the bath dissolved alumina concentration http://www.peter-entner.com/E/Theory/ElProp/LiquTemp.aspx, you could compute Tliq locally as function of the local dissolved alumina concentration, are you doing it? If not, please again comment on the impact of that simplification on the alumina dissolution rate prediction. First paragraph of section 3, it is still not clear how you add alumina particles. There is a feeding period of 144 seconds so every 144 seconds 7.2 kg of alumina particles are added to the cell. But this is not a continuous addition, clearly from figure 5 we can see that at time 10 seconds, no more particles are added. What is the mass flow rate of the alumina particles addition or the duration of the alumina particles addition at the beginning of the simulation? You commented on the fact that "only" 0.063 kg of particles is felt at the end of the 144 seconds feeding cycle in the Model verification section. Clearly you cannot sludge a cell in a single feeding cycle, but at 144 seconds per feeding cycle, that represent 600 feeding cycles per day so 37.8 kg of sludge accumulation per day. Without back feeding, this sludge will keep accumulating day after day! [ Last edited by cxksama on 2014-8-7 at 09:45 ] |
回復(fù)此樓» 猜你喜歡
274求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
328求調(diào)劑，英語六級(jí)551，有科研經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有10人回復(fù)
-
328求調(diào)劑，英語六級(jí)551，有科研經(jīng)歷
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
材料專業(yè)求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有5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10人回復(fù)
-
344求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
一志愿985，本科211，0817化學(xué)工程與技術(shù)319求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
-
271材料工程求調(diào)劑
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
材料專碩英一數(shù)二306
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
-
294求調(diào)劑材料與化工專碩
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
» 本主題相關(guān)價(jià)值貼推薦，對(duì)您同樣有幫助:
- Optical Engineering返回后的修改意見，求大家指教這是大修還是小修，并如何回答？
已經(jīng)有40人回復(fù)
- 審稿意見求助(是小修還是大改？)
已經(jīng)有13人回復(fù)
- 小修多久修回比較合適？
已經(jīng)有16人回復(fù)
- 請(qǐng)大家看一下我的評(píng)審意見，是小修，還是大修？
已經(jīng)有10人回復(fù)
- plos one 小修后又是under view，這是又送外審了？（已接收）
已經(jīng)有9人回復(fù)
- 小修，只有1個(gè)審稿人的意見，返回后又under review了，詭異的日期居然會(huì)改變？
已經(jīng)有17人回復(fù)
- 搞不懂的審稿過程 ACS applied materials & interfaces
已經(jīng)有13人回復(fù)
- 牛人幫我分析一下，外審3周，大修返回后，三周給小修意見，。目前underreview
已經(jīng)有16人回復(fù)
- 論文修改第二次了，也沒有寫大修還是小修，都是revise，第二次修改都半個(gè)月還沒消息
已經(jīng)有12人回復(fù)
- 審稿意見全是小修，認(rèn)真修回后卻被拒了。這是啥情況？
已經(jīng)有47人回復(fù)
- SCI文章狀態(tài)變?yōu)樾⌒�，但是收到的郵件里卻沒有小修意見，何解？
已經(jīng)有29人回復(fù)
- J.Power sources 給了一個(gè)月的修改期限，算大修還是小修？
已經(jīng)有11人回復(fù)
- 大家?guī)兔Π。笮薹祷匾庖姡篔AP小修的幾個(gè)問題�。�
已經(jīng)有4人回復(fù)
- JAP大修后，返回意見讓小修，幾天提交修改稿比較合適呢？
已經(jīng)有11人回復(fù)
- 論文都第二次外審?fù)炅耍谷贿�是沒有修改意見什么的
已經(jīng)有14人回復(fù)
- 不知道是大修還是小修，套詞什么意思��？修改稿會(huì)被如何處理？等待很折磨��！
已經(jīng)有8人回復(fù)
- 我的第一SCI投稿返回意見了，這個(gè)算大修還是小修？ Physica A
已經(jīng)有11人回復(fù)
- PRB這樣的審稿意見算是大修還是小修？
已經(jīng)有6人回復(fù)
- 小修沒有完全回答審稿人意見，會(huì)不會(huì)悲劇��？
已經(jīng)有21人回復(fù)
- 大家?guī)臀铱纯磳徃迦说囊庖娛谴笮捱�是小修，接收概率多大
已經(jīng)有9人回復(fù)
- 論文大修后再小修，居然第三次送外審
已經(jīng)有20人回復(fù)
- 編輯小修，三個(gè)審稿人有一個(gè)較為負(fù)面該怎么回答
已經(jīng)有7人回復(fù)
- 修改后復(fù)審，為何又送去外審了？
已經(jīng)有9人回復(fù)
- sci 文章小修修回后，還會(huì)被送審嗎？
已經(jīng)有29人回復(fù)
engp8908
銀蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應(yīng)助: 100 (初中生)
- 金幣: 2336.2
- 紅花: 5
- 帖子: 533
- 在線: 179.5小時(shí)
- 蟲號(hào): 3329017
- 注冊(cè): 2014-07-18
- 專業(yè): 分離過程
【答案】應(yīng)助回帖
★ ★
感謝參與，應(yīng)助指數(shù) +1
詹水清: 金幣+2, ★★★很有幫助 2014-08-04 09:41:39
感謝參與，應(yīng)助指數(shù) +1
詹水清: 金幣+2, ★★★很有幫助 2014-08-04 09:41:39
|
本修改充其量只算中等程度的修改。 第一審稿人，可能和所提供參考有關(guān)，說明你對(duì)所做領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的有關(guān)進(jìn)展沒有概括全面，這樣在論文中引用就好，最好在前言部分提到，在討論部分再次比較最好。 第二審稿人基本上，可能是業(yè)內(nèi)熟悉者或者對(duì)所研究的東西非常感興趣，咨詢了幾個(gè)和實(shí)驗(yàn)以及模型密切相關(guān)的問題。直接一條一條地回答就可以了。 至于再次交稿后是否送審，得編輯說了算。但是從所提問題來看，只要你能把問題回答了，那么我估計(jì)交稿后1個(gè)星期左右就該通知你錄用了。  |
9樓2014-08-04 09:21:12
gxy5669777
鐵桿木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應(yīng)助: 14 (小學(xué)生)
- 金幣: 5895
- 散金: 2962
- 紅花: 39
- 帖子: 755
- 在線: 557.7小時(shí)
- 蟲號(hào): 1835567
- 注冊(cè): 2012-05-26
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 管理復(fù)雜性研究
2樓2014-08-03 21:14:06
phyguang
鐵蟲 (小有名氣)
- 應(yīng)助: 8 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 20.9
- 帖子: 135
- 在線: 10.7小時(shí)
- 蟲號(hào): 2829542
- 注冊(cè): 2013-11-26
- 性別: GG
- 專業(yè): 核物理
3樓2014-08-03 21:17:19
★
感謝參與，應(yīng)助指數(shù) +1
詹水清: 金幣+1, ★有幫助 2014-08-04 08:34:19
感謝參與，應(yīng)助指數(shù) +1
詹水清: 金幣+1, ★有幫助 2014-08-04 08:34:19
|
本帖內(nèi)容被屏蔽 |
4樓2014-08-03 22:07:25
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
