【转】南都评冰与火之歌# paladin - 谈古论金,黄梁一梦
u*o
1 楼
上次报告遇到了垃圾审稿人(第一个审稿人),有兴趣的可以翻翻我前面发的帖子。
上次修改之后,重新提交了上去。
前两天反馈意见回来:
第三审稿人认为我们的稿件质量为good,同意发表as is without change。
第二审稿人也同意发表,但是提出要增加压降的数据。这部分数据我们有一些,但是由
于传感器量程有限,获得的数据非常不全面,而且因为热状态的压降数据受很多因素影
响,就没有特别在意去采集。 我们的文章是关于流动传热的,主要着重点是研究一种
新的传热方法。现在这个审稿人不知大脑那根弦除了问题,强调没有压降数据不能接受
。为何相当一部分流动传热的文章没有沸腾状态下的压降数据都照样发表呢?
第一个审稿人的二审意见建议据稿,理由如下:
"The corrections and modifications as wells as additions should be included
in the text. In addition, figure and table quality have not been improved
as the authors stated."
但事实上,For one, the corrections are all integrated into the text. For the
second, the terms in a table that he referred(he claimed to be
inappropriate abbreviation) has all be changed to full spellings. Major
dimensions he requested were added in several figures. He also claimed that
the image in Fig. 5(f) is bad and incomplete. However, Figure 5(a)-(f)
share the same format and they were frames taken from the boiling videos.
Why only Fig. 5(f) is bad and incomplete? I have also explained that the
image is not shown the full view of the channel because the limited
resolution with the high speed video camera.
不好意思,中英文混杂。想问的两个问题是
1) 对于第二个审稿人坚持要求提供的压降数据,我们有的数据很不完整,也不是100%
可靠。另外就是,文章已经很长了。这种情况下怎么答复第二审稿人?
2) 对于第一个审稿人,我认为他基本上是nonsense and pointeless。水平和责任心
都极其低下(一审意见里面全是病句和拼错,抄错的词,让人不得不猜他想说什么)。
这种情况下我们显然也不知道如何满足他的要求?
请问,各位faculty遇到这种情况会怎么处理?
谢谢了。
上次修改之后,重新提交了上去。
前两天反馈意见回来:
第三审稿人认为我们的稿件质量为good,同意发表as is without change。
第二审稿人也同意发表,但是提出要增加压降的数据。这部分数据我们有一些,但是由
于传感器量程有限,获得的数据非常不全面,而且因为热状态的压降数据受很多因素影
响,就没有特别在意去采集。 我们的文章是关于流动传热的,主要着重点是研究一种
新的传热方法。现在这个审稿人不知大脑那根弦除了问题,强调没有压降数据不能接受
。为何相当一部分流动传热的文章没有沸腾状态下的压降数据都照样发表呢?
第一个审稿人的二审意见建议据稿,理由如下:
"The corrections and modifications as wells as additions should be included
in the text. In addition, figure and table quality have not been improved
as the authors stated."
但事实上,For one, the corrections are all integrated into the text. For the
second, the terms in a table that he referred(he claimed to be
inappropriate abbreviation) has all be changed to full spellings. Major
dimensions he requested were added in several figures. He also claimed that
the image in Fig. 5(f) is bad and incomplete. However, Figure 5(a)-(f)
share the same format and they were frames taken from the boiling videos.
Why only Fig. 5(f) is bad and incomplete? I have also explained that the
image is not shown the full view of the channel because the limited
resolution with the high speed video camera.
不好意思,中英文混杂。想问的两个问题是
1) 对于第二个审稿人坚持要求提供的压降数据,我们有的数据很不完整,也不是100%
可靠。另外就是,文章已经很长了。这种情况下怎么答复第二审稿人?
2) 对于第一个审稿人,我认为他基本上是nonsense and pointeless。水平和责任心
都极其低下(一审意见里面全是病句和拼错,抄错的词,让人不得不猜他想说什么)。
这种情况下我们显然也不知道如何满足他的要求?
请问,各位faculty遇到这种情况会怎么处理?
谢谢了。