请问有在CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL 上发过文章，请帮我看一下编辑说的是什么意思
前几天刚收到审稿意见，一个建议小修改，一个建议大修改。可是编辑的意见让我很郁闷，摸不着头脑呀，有那位大哥在这个杂志上发过文章？，请帮我看一下编辑说的是什么意思？Dear Dr.***
Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on 13.02.2007.
We read this with interest and asked two referees foe their opinions.
We agree with the comments made by one of referees that although your findings are novel they do not reperesent a sufficient basis for publication of a full paper at the present time. If, on the other hand, you have in the meantime obtained new results that are pertinent to the referees' comments, there would, in principle, be no obstacle to reassessing an appropriately supplemented manuscript.
I hope that you will understand our decision on this matter.
Sincerely yours.
Dr.*****
editor 我的理解如下：首先他们肯定了你的工作是有新意的，但是目前的工作量（你在paper中呈现的work）还不足以以全文的形式发表出来，如果你能针对那个reviewer的意见进一步再补充一下相关的实验并有较好的的结果的话，就可以顺利接受了。
据我所了解，这个期刊还是要相当的工作量的，editor的意见其实就是让你再补补实验。不知理解的对否，希望对你能有帮助。祝早日发表！：）
回复 #2 sally208 的帖子
哥们，谢啦！ 呵呵，不客气，相互帮助嘛，希望能早点接受哦，这个期刊还是很好的，IF涨的挺快的。 这个是从一区下来的,当然牛起了的却是让你补数据.
虽然小弟还没有投过Chemistry 要么补数据，要么Communication
回复 #4 sally208 的帖子
什么是一区呀？ angew---> communicationsCEJ----> full paper
Since your work is novel, why don't try Angew? 德国应用化学现在还行吧，不是很难，就是新意呀
回复 1楼的 jerlinlong 的帖子
您好，我最近也投了欧洲化学，审稿意见和你一样，一个建议大改，一个建议小改，编辑的话就是一摸一样的，估计是模板信件，但是是不要了还是修改啊，咋就没有个明确的意见呢？不知您的稿件最终怎么样了？我的在线投稿操作列表里面也没有要我修改的文件，我实在不明白是咋回事。回复 10楼的 hexin1981 的帖子
我根据审稿人的意见补充了一些数据，并且做了大的修改后重新投，10天后就接到录用通知了，不过在cover letter里要写清楚你做了那些修改。其实编辑的意思就是要再补充点东西，再重新投，然后编辑再把修改稿件发给原来的审稿人审，这样中的概率还是很大的，不过要认真对待。
哥们！ 祝你好运！
回复 11楼的 jerlinlong 的帖子
谢谢宝贵经验的分享！我弄不明白的是，在投稿页面上没有让我修改的，好像是让我重新进入新的投稿程序，我不知道这样需不需要发信问下编辑。Dear Dr. He,
Thank you for your letter and the above-mentioned manuscript received on 19.08.2007.
We read this with interest and asked two referees for their opinions.
We agree with the comments made by one of the referees that although your findings are novel they do not represent a sufficient basis for publication of a full paper at the present time. If, on the other hand, you have in the meantime obtained new results that are pertinent to the referees' comments, there would, in principle, be no obstacle to reassessing an appropriately supplemented manuscript.
I hope that you will understand our decision on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Neville Compton
Editor
Referee 1:
Importance: C) less important
Hypotheses Yes/No: No
Appropriate Length: Yes
Different Journal: Chem. Asian J. ?
Recommend Acceptance: C) Yes, but only with major alterations *)
Referee 2:
Importance: B) important
Hypotheses Yes/No: Yes
Appropriate Length: Yes
Different Journal:
Recommend Acceptance: B) Yes, with minor alterations
回复 12楼的 hexin1981 的帖子
是重新投稿，但你要在cover letter说明白。这个时候没必要发email 问了。我上次情况也跟你完全一样，只是审稿意见稍微不同而已。 不好意思，对不起呀，把你认作男同胞了 如果你需要，我可以跟你分享我的cover letter。祝你好运！回复 15楼的 jerlinlong 的帖子
呵呵，好啊，非常感谢，我的QQ号是499031076，你加我吧。以后多交流交流！ 这是我自己写的cover letter，仅供你参考。Mar. 27, 2007
Dr. Neville Compton
Editor Chemistry-A European Journal
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA
Boschstrasse 12, 69469 Weinheim
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6201 / 606 - 335
Fax: +49 (0) 6201 / 606 - 331 or -328
E-mail: [email]chemistry@wiley-vch.de[/email]
Homepage: [url]http://www.chemeurj.org[/url]
Dear Dr. Neville Compton，
Enclosed Please find an appropriately supplemented and revised manuscript entitled: “**************************************” (Manuscript No. *****). On your letter, you mentioned that our findings are novel, but if we have obtained new results that are pertinent to the referees’ comments, you will reconsider it for publication as a full paper in Chemistry-A European Journal. Now we have done it. Some results pertinent to the reviewers’ comments have been supplemented appropriately in the manuscript to further clarify the structure of the surface species. Simultaneously, we have made the major revision to this manuscript according to the referees’ suggestions after comprehensively reconsidering all experimental results. Please feel free to let us know if you need further clarifications. Point-by-point replies to the reviewers’ comments are attached to this letter. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ helpful suggestions, and we believe that we have adequately addressed their concerns.
Thank you very much for your consideration, and we look forward to your decision.
Given below are the changes made in the revised manuscript and our comments:
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
回复 17楼的 jerlinlong 的帖子
谢谢，怎么感觉你是给编辑直接发的邮件啊，还是你再重新网上投稿啊？ 不数据，再投，再审 我的理解其实文章是被拒了
但是编辑认为你如果能够补充试验充实内容的话
还是可以重投后发表的
页:
[1]
2