[期刊] 被打槍了~~~

看板PhD作者 (掙扎中的博班生~~)時間12年前 (2011/11/05 17:21), 編輯推噓11(11026)
留言37則, 14人參與, 最新討論串1/8 (看更多)
除了我自己的疏忽外~~~ 這個reviewer真的覺得我的文章寫得粉爛吧~~~~ JPP我也已經上了兩篇了~~沒想到第3篇打擊這麼大~~~~~ 再找別篇期刊吧~~~~~ Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author Written English needs vast improvement. At present the grammar/language is of an unacceptably low quality. References. Ref 2: Herman, K. should by Krier, H. - you've got the names backwards. Ref 3: you have a problem with the quotations. Refs 4-8 are completely unrelated to the present work; they are just FEM papers in different thermal stress applications. Reference work relevant to your manuscript. Previous work on FEM/thermal calculations and stress/thermal measurements in rocket motors, insulators, and propellant grains. Value. What is the value or novelty of this work? The authors have applied a heat transfer condition to the inside of an annulus and performed a black box ANSYS FEM calculation for the stress distribution in the annulus. In my opinion, this is not a publishable result but rather an undergraduate student project. The results are not generalized for non-specific materials, variation in motor case thickness, etc. I see very little value in this work. The limited results are specific to the chosen parameters and this can be easily done by nearly anyone with ANSYS and a BS in mechanical engineering. Technical. What is the applied pressure on the insulator? I assume zero. This is purely a thermal stress calculation? Why vary insulator thickness but not also motor case thickness? Won't this influence the 0.6 cm thickness criteria for insulator thickness? Why the sharp changes in stress in the first 4 seconds? You should show a thermal loading (temperature, heat flux, other) graph to explain. But my biggest problem is that this work lacks value for nearly all readers. This is simple black box FEM analysis on a thermally loaded annulus. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author (There are no comments.) -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.70.5.61

11/05 17:45, , 1F
要不大家都來popo自己投稿的受傷經驗吧~
11/05 17:45, 1F

11/05 18:01, , 2F
+1,我不是在洗文章ㄛ~~~
11/05 18:01, 2F

11/05 18:05, , 3F
結果老板剛還問我對於被打槍的回應~冏.被打槍還要回應喔~哀
11/05 18:05, 3F

11/05 18:11, , 4F
把被打槍經驗推出來分享需,勇氣可嘉。沒有看到你的論文很難
11/05 18:11, 4F

11/05 18:12, , 5F
再評論什麼,只想講一句關於研究價值部份的評論。研究要有價
11/05 18:12, 5F

11/05 18:13, , 6F
值必須顛覆舊的想法,或者能明確地補充過去研究不足之處。這
11/05 18:13, 6F

11/05 18:13, , 7F
部份有些時候跟寫作能力有關。常常有學生實驗作得不錯,但是
11/05 18:13, 7F

11/05 18:14, , 8F
無法推銷出去,就敗在這點。
11/05 18:14, 8F

11/05 18:15, , 9F
所以在文章的背景敘述中必須很具體的批判過去不足的地方,以
11/05 18:15, 9F

11/05 18:15, , 10F
凸顯自己的價值。台灣學生在這方面常常過分客氣,不敢批評前
11/05 18:15, 10F

11/05 18:16, , 11F
人的研究。
11/05 18:16, 11F

11/05 18:25, , 12F
給您鼓勵一下, 很多人不願對別人說, 讓大家誤以為投稿很容易.
11/05 18:25, 12F

11/05 21:07, , 13F
投稿真的是很難阿~共勉之
11/05 21:07, 13F

11/05 21:35, , 14F
感覺他對你用ANSYS有很大的意見 XD
11/05 21:35, 14F

11/05 21:37, , 15F
我不清楚你的文章內容,不過通常用套軟一定要做實驗,才比
11/05 21:37, 15F

11/05 21:38, , 16F
較有機會上,如果純模擬最好自己寫程式,不然常會被說
11/05 21:38, 16F

11/05 21:39, , 17F
BS就可以做或black box
11/05 21:39, 17F

11/05 23:15, , 18F
評論有點毒...
11/05 23:15, 18F
cjws80293:轉錄至某隱形看板 11/05 23:41

11/06 00:56, , 19F
投稿真的是很痛苦阿~
11/06 00:56, 19F

11/06 03:34, , 20F
這槍那麼大,而且從ref.的評論就知道他很龜毛了....
11/06 03:34, 20F

11/06 03:35, , 21F
4-8八成是在introduction裡面的吧。通常有點關係就可能
11/06 03:35, 21F

11/06 03:35, , 22F
被抓進去講了。連這種地方他也打槍
11/06 03:35, 22F

11/06 04:20, , 23F
你應該感謝 reviewer 願意花這麼多時間力氣去細讀然後挑出錯
11/06 04:20, 23F

11/06 04:21, , 24F
誤的地方. 真要給你麻煩直接寫水準太低就可以了. 語言跟寫作
11/06 04:21, 24F

11/06 04:22, , 25F
不到基本水準的文章讀或審起來真的很痛苦, 加上像姓名弄反這
11/06 04:22, 25F

11/06 04:24, , 26F
種低級錯誤. 算是很認真的 reviewer 了. 不要總是用負面觀點
11/06 04:24, 26F

11/06 04:25, , 27F
去度想別人..
11/06 04:25, 27F

11/06 07:25, , 28F
推樓上。我也覺得這評審看起來蠻客觀細心的
11/06 07:25, 28F

11/06 09:31, , 29F
推樓樓上,如果有用心的話就不該連姓名都寫反
11/06 09:31, 29F

11/06 11:12, , 30F
其實我並不會怪REVIEWER啦,前兩篇有上的意見還比多的勒~~~
11/06 11:12, 30F

11/06 11:13, , 31F
只是我覺得這一篇是已經被declined一次了 而修改的意見是
11/06 11:13, 31F

11/06 11:14, , 32F
根據前一次4個reviewer的意見去修改的 可是這一次看起來
11/06 11:14, 32F

11/06 11:16, , 33F
應該又是不同的reviewer的意見~~只是覺得有點傻眼罷了~~~~
11/06 11:16, 33F

11/07 00:17, , 34F
這個reviwer還滿細心的啊
11/07 00:17, 34F

11/07 19:08, , 35F
通常複審會找前審 但有些前審審過就寫明不願再審
11/07 19:08, 35F

11/07 19:09, , 36F
就算後來再邀也抵死不從
11/07 19:09, 36F

11/08 08:54, , 37F
我被同學打槍~>"<!! ~重傷 砍掉重練~
11/08 08:54, 37F
文章代碼(AID): #1EjG0sjb (PhD)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1EjG0sjb (PhD)