文章被拒，老板说申诉一下，大家帮看下要不要申诉？投的 Catalysis Science & Technology，只有两个审稿人的意见，其中一个没有说拒搞，意见就不附上，另外一个审稿人的意见是拒搞，下面是该审稿人拒搞的主要原因，大家帮看一下有没有必要申诉，The authors report a plethora of techniques applied to characterize CuZnO / Al2O3 type catalysts (although it is impossible to ascertain the exact nature / content of the catalysts). The key claimed innovation is the use of triethanolamine in place of other inorganic bases as a catalytic promoter for CO hydrogenation to higher alcohols, although the motivation for this is unclear. The production of fuels and chemical intermediates from syngas is a field of tremendous importance and I anticipated the reported reaction is of wide interest to readers of this journal. However, the work is presented in both poor English and with catalyst nomenclature that even after working through several times does not permit clarity as to the content of the catalysts.Two further key important issues are not dealt with：1. Triethanolamine is likely soluble under reaction condition, so presumably catalyst deactivates faster than alkali counterparts and is not really any more a heterogeneous catalyst in the true sense – therefore the motivation for using TEA is rather lost on me?2. All the reported catalysis data appears to say it is % of given alcohol AS A FRACTION OF TOTAL ALCOHOL – but in this case many FT catalysts would also do this as it could be achieved by reducing the alcohol yield dramatically and producing other less desirable products. It is presented as though only alcohols are produced but the total alcohol yield or a carbon fraction converted to alcohol is not given. 老板让申诉理由：一：两个审稿人都认为我们的文章创新点是有的。二：老板认为第二个拒搞的审稿人是个外行，三：我们可能表达的不够清楚，这个可以改改文章。目前主要求助大家让大家看看这个拒搞的审稿人的意见，看看有没有申诉的必要，小弟先谢谢了。查看更多7个回答 . 19人已关注
第1天
关注盖德视界
添加小助手
