不好意思~借标题发文 小弟最近投稿的期刊回覆了... 关於referee的问题..还是有点担心回答的不够好而被打枪QQ 是这样的 小弟的实验主要是已开发的材料在催化上的应用 而目前文献回顾是没有人做过这样的应用 选了4种材料，但是其中一种材料被referee质疑 质疑的点是其PDXRD与文献差满多的，认为这不是我们所认定的材料 referee也举了一篇paper的例子给我们看这个材料的监定 因此referee觉得我们可以全部删掉这个材料的讨论部分 并最後给了一个大修後接受.. 原文如下: Referee 1: > > Importance: B) important > > Hypotheses Yes/No: No > > Appropriate Length: Yes > > Different Journal: > > Recommend Acceptance: C) Yes, but only with major alterations *) > > Referee Letter: I went through the revised version of paper and feel that > the authors have addressed some concerns expressed by the referees. > However, I still feel that data on the material should not be > published. The XRD pattern in the supporting information does not confirm > the material structure as well as the extremely low surface area. For a > recent publiction in this area consult DOI: > 10.1016/j.micromeso.XXXXX > > I suggest that all data and discussion concerning material should be > omitted in the paper as well as in the supporting information unless a > good quality material is provide 我会担心的点是，如果只是拿掉这部分的讨论对我来说很简单就可以回覆了 但是referee给了大修...这意义是什麽? 我需要再把受质疑的材料找到最佳合成条件吗? 还是就拿掉讨论部份就好? 谢谢大家给我不同的意见... --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.135.56.103