真倒霉，又被拒了？原文如下： Each manuscript is thoroughly evaluated by one or more of our editors, who assess the manuscript's quality and its priority for publication. Those manuscripts judged unlikely to succeed through external review or whose subject matter does not meet our current editorial priorities are rejected at that point. JAMA Network Open receives more than 9000 manuscripts annually, and many are rejected after such editorial review. Based on our evaluation, I regret to inform you that we will not pursue the manuscript you have submitted to us. While we realize that you may be disappointed with our decision, we hope that providing you with this information promptly will allow you to submit your manuscript to another journal without the delay entailed by the external review process. Thank you for the privilege of reviewing your work. Sincerely yours, Stephan D. Fihn, MD, MPH Deputy Editor - JAMA Network Open https://jamanetwork.com Confidentiality Note: This communication, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the addressee, may contain privileged, confidential or proprietary information, and may not be redistributed in any way without the sender's consent. Thank you. 查看更多4个回答 . 12人已关注
science advance一审审稿意见和编辑意见？一审18天，审稿意见（审稿人1：小修，但讨论部分比较简单，建议好好改。审稿人2:小修），编辑给potentially interested in publishing the paper 。后续拒稿的的可能性大吗。给6周的修改时间（审稿人说讨论部分简单，但我其实感觉好好写了，大改起来难度还是挺大的，有些担心审稿人1不满意）两个审稿人分别提出了5个和6个问题，个别问题没那么容易回答好。 编辑：Thank you for sending us your manuscript, referenced above. We are pleased to inform you that we are potentially interested in publishing the paper in Science Advances. However, we are not prepared to accept it in its present form and would like you to revise your manuscript in response to reviewer and editorial comments. Your revised manuscript may be sent out for re-review or it may be re-assessed only by the Science Advances editor/s who previously handled it. Please note that if changes do not meet editorial expectations, your manuscript can still be rejected. 审稿人1：The idea is novel and innovative, and the results presented are interesting and worth publishing eventually. A lot of images and observations are compiled, but the discussion at this stage is very crude and does not provide a good understanding of the system. Although I consider the revision to be minor, some of the descriptions or discussions should be seriously revised to provide a better understanding of the results。 审稿人2：Based on the salient features of this work, it can be recommended for publication in Science Advances, but some revisions are recommended, as outlined below查看更多7个回答 . 10人已关注
求教：超级电容器如何做floating test （浮动测试）？本人目前正在做超级电容器，现在投了一篇杂志，审稿人要求补做floating test （浮动测试），我问了好多人都说没做过，焦急万分，实在是不知道怎么做。希望哪位做过floating test （浮动测试）的大神能够帮忙解决一下我的问题，方便的话留个联系方式，如能解决定当重谢！！！查看更多1个回答 . 18人已关注
第1天
关注盖德视界
添加小助手
