大修审稿意见，重金求教如何回复

投稿Energy，35天后返回修改，给的大修，求教有经验的虫友如何回复审稿意见比较好。另外，为什么附件里只有一个人的审稿人意见？

Dear***,

The review of this paper is now complete, and I am including the Reviewers' reports (directly at the end of this email and sometimes as attachments).  As you can see, one Reviewer recommends rejection, and the others recommend possible reconsideration after major revisions.  If you are able to revise the manuscript thoroughly in response to the Reviewers' comments, I believe that it would be suitable for second review.  I should add that, in view of the strong criticisms, anything but a thorough response and revision would just be an unfortunate waste of time.

Once you have revised the paper accordingly, please submit with it a note describing in detail your response to these comments and a separate copy of the revised paper marked up to indicate where the revisions were made.

NOTE: Upon submitting your revised manuscript, please upload the source files for your article. For additional details regarding acceptable file formats, please refer to the Guide for Authors at: http://www.elsevier.com/journals/energy/0360-5442/guide-for-authors

When submitting your revised paper, we ask that you include the following items:

Manuscript and Figure Source Files (mandatory)

We cannot accommodate PDF manuscript files for production purposes. We also ask that when submitting your revision you follow the journal formatting guidelines.  Figures and tables may be embedded within the source file for the submission as long as they are of sufficient resolution for Production. Refer to the Guide for Authors for additional information.

http://www.elsevier.com/journals/energy/0360-5442/guide-for-authors

Highlights (mandatory)

Highlights consist of a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings of the article and should be submitted in a separate file in the online submission system. Please use 'Highlights' in the file name and include 3 to 5 bullet points (maximum 85 characters, including spaces, per bullet point). See the following website for more information

http://www.elsevier.com/highlights

Please note that this journal offers a new, free service called AudioSlides: brief, webcast-style presentations that are shown next to published articles on ScienceDirect (see also http://www.elsevier.com/audioslides). If your paper is accepted for publication, you will automatically receive an invitation to create an AudioSlides presentation.

Thank you for your interest in ENERGY.

Sincerely,

Milorad Lj Bojic, Ph.D.

Editor

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Through a thorough reading and reviewing, the reviewer suggests that the following problems should be addressed and the manuscript should be modified.

1. Keywords should contain "Lauric acid".  

2.  XRD results reveal that the IKL and LA/IKL have the same diffraction peak at 2<theta>of 7.8o, indicating that the LA molecules are mainly located on the IKL surface rather than the inner-layer. Please discuss in more detail.

3. In the FTIR spectra, there are no peaks at 3670 and 3624 cm-1, please check why?

4. The authors note that the LA drives the IKL to exfoliate, which may afford an increase of specific surface area for LA/IKL. However, BET results reveal an obvious reduction of specific surface area. Is there any other reason for this reduction, for example the LA/IKL aggregation? Since SEM images imply that LA/IKL has larger size than IKL.

5. Please check the result of the impregnation ratio of LA in LA/IKL (51.5 wt%), which should be about 58 wt%.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reported a novel form-stable phase change material (FSPCM) for thermal energy storage which was prepared by*******. I have read the whole paper and find that this study is simple and less novelty. The very similar work been published in Journal of Materials Science &Engineering (Preparation and Thermal Properties of Binary Organic / kaolin Composites as Shape-stabilized Phase Change Material for Thermal Energy Storage, 2013, 31, 268-272.) In addition, the Ref. 19 and Ref. 29 have been cited repeatedly. Therefore, this paper in present stage could not be accepted for publication in Energy.

Reviewer #3: COMMENTS:

(1) The authors need to be careful in their English usage. Therefore, full of the paper should be reviewed. Especially, some sentences in the introduction section are lack of continuity.

(2) What is LOI in Table 1? Please clearly write it.

(3) On page 4, line 7, "The suspension was ultrasonic at 70 oC for 2 h…." should be corrected as "The suspension was kept in ultrasonic bath at 70 oC for 2 h…."

(4) The performances of energy storage and release of composite PCMs are substantially dependent on their thermal conductivity. Therefore, the thermal conductivity of the composite PCM is important parameter in thermal energy storage applications.  Please clarify the why did the authors measure the thermal conductivity value of the composite PCM. It is possiblethe authors should be provided the thermal conductivity value of the composite PCM.

(5) There are some writing errors in the text. For example

---On page 1, line 24, "kaolinite is one ….. " should be "Kaolinite is one ….."

---On page 1, line 59, "In recently years, ….." should be corrected as "In recent years , …."

---On page 5, line 1, "Differential scanning calorimety (DSC) was carried out….." should be

    corrected as "Differential scanning calorimety (DSC) measurements were carried out…."

---On page 5, line 15, "The morphology and microstructure was….." should be corrected as "The morphology and microstructure were….."

---On page 6, line 58, "FTIR spectroscopy and the results is shown….." should be corrected as "FTIR spectroscopy and the results are shown .."

---On page 7, line 19, "The adsorption peaks at 2923 cm-1 and 2854 cm-1 is caused….." should be corrected as "The adsorption peaks at 2923 cm-1 and 2854 cm-1 are caused.."

---On page 8, line 19, "…… of mespores below …..." should be corrected as "…… of mesopores below ……."

---On page 8, line 47, "……SEM images were made." should be "…SEM images were obtained.

---On page 9, in the caption of section 3.5 "thermal properties…..." should be corrected as "Thermal properties……"

(4) The following papers can be useful to more clearly understanding the form-stable composite PCM:

---Capric-myristic acid/expanded perlite composite as form-stable phase change material for latent heat thermal energy storage, Renewable Energy  Volume: 33   Issue: 12   DEC 2008 Pages: 2599-2605   

---Preparation, characterization and thermal properties of Lauryl alcohol/Kaolin as novel form-stable composite phase change material for thermal energy storage in buildings, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 59, Issues 1-2, 25 September 2013, Pages 336-347

---Structures and thermal properties of fatty acid/expanded perlite composites as form-stable phase change materials Energy and Buildings, Volume 68, Part A, January 2014, Pages 587-592

---Preparation, characterization and thermal properties of lauric acid/expanded perlite as novel form-stable composite phase change material, Chemical Engineering Journal  Volume: 155   Issue: 3   Pages: 899-904   Published: DEC 15 2009

---Preparation, thermal properties and thermal reliability of eutectic mixtures of fatty acids/expanded vermiculite as novel form-stable composites for energy storage Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry  Volume: 16   Issue: 5   Pages: 767-773   Published: SEP 25 2010

你按审稿人的建议认认真真地修改，特别是第二个审稿人，说你的论文simple and less novelty，这是很大的硬伤，这个问题不解决，很难录用的。还有你们细节太不注意了，英语写作也要提高。

好好根据审稿意见修改文章，特别是意见不好的那位。每一天都要回复，并说明文章是怎么带的，或者对审稿意见进行解释。

透射电镜是用高能电子束（加速电压一般在200KV以上）照射样品，透过样品的电子由于样品厚度、元素、缺陷、晶体结构等的不同，会产生不同的花样或图像衬度，由此可以推测样品的相关信息。由于电子束要能透过样品，因此样品厚度要求很薄，一般要小于100纳米。如果要做高分辨，要求更薄。

问题一：求如何写论文审稿意见？ 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条： （1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。 （2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。 （3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。 根据以上三点，你可以适当发挥。

问题二：论文审稿意见怎么写 我以前的博士论文，评阅人就是根据我论文里的摘要写的，精炼一下就OK了。评阅书里面应该有自己写的创新点，你可以参照写一下。leonshane(站内联系TA)首先对这篇论文进行简单概括，指出其主要线索：研究目标、方法、意义、创新等，然后指出一两个最大的问题，如果其问题的确是致命的话，那么久建议修改。 你写完你导师会帮你把关的，如果他不看，建议你申请换导师。。。shuoyeb(站内联系TA)一、概况评价项目：论文的创新性成果 论文的学术价值及应用价值 论文反映出作者的基础理论和专门知识水平论文写作论文总体评价 二、综合所有评阅人对论文的学术评语 （选题的意义，论文的创新性成果，学术价值及应用价值，实验结果和计算数据的合理性及可靠性等）……三、论文中存在的问题、不足及意见或建议 1. 评议人认为第*章第*节****中有****的问题*****。 2. ……lbh535(站内联系TA)评审意见应点面结合。面就是总体概况，而点则至少体现评阅人有没有仔细看内容。现在好多论文评审一审就是一大批，特别是社会科学方面的，评阅意见都写些泛泛而谈的东西，感觉评阅人就没太仔细看。qiuqu_200212(站内联系TA)建议答辩，然后简单写些评语即可。k10001(站内联系TA)还有一段八股：论文表明，***在所研究领域掌握了坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识，具备了（很强的）独立从事科学研究工作的能力，论文（具有创新性，）达到了博士论文学术水平。建议组织博士学位论文答辩。nono2009(站内联系TA)评阅表中有提示的，按提示要求的几项内容写评阅意见即可。songjm12(站内联系TA)好好阅读评审书前两页要求部分 写好评语就行了yuffey(站内联系TA)研究问题清晰不，研究目标明确不，方法得当不，结果明显不？ 工作量饱满不，内容充实不？等等 最好的方法是，找个以前的博士论文，抄写抄写。八股文~~

问题三：审稿意见怎么写 审稿意见怎么写

一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：

（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

英文论文审稿意见汇总

以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。

1、目标和结果不清晰。

Itis noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertisein technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar,spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study areclear to the reader.

2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

◆ In general,there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me

thods used in the study.

◆ Furthermore,an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments

should be provided.

3、对于研究设计的rationale:

Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：

The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show

ifthe side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：

Ahypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：

What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

7、对研究问题的定义：

Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,

write one section to define the problem

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:

The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.

9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:

There is no experimental parison of the algorithm with previouslyknown w......>>

问题四：论文审稿意见怎么写 论文评阅意见（样本） IPv6是下一代互联网的核心技术，网络协议的测试则是保障网络顺利运行的有力工具。郑红霞同学的硕士论文对IPv6协议一致性测试进行研究，侧重于研究测试例的设计方法，其选题具有重要的实用价值。 论文在总结和分析前人所作相关工作的基础上，结合科研工作背景，选择关键点开展工作，提出了一种新的IPv6协议一致性测试例设计方法，应用该方法可以优化测试例的前测试步和后测试步的测试序列生成，得到了仅由前测试步和测试体组成的简捷的测试例结构； 论文提出了测试例评价指标，并给出了计算方法，以量化的方法分析了新的测试例设计方法的优越性；应用作者提出的测试例设计方法，设计了ICMPv6协议、IPv6 PMTU协议、Addressing协议、IPSec协议和Transition Mechani *** 协议的测试集，在测试实践中验证了新的测试例设计方法能简化测试序列，缩短测试执行时间，提高测试效率。 论文工作表明作者掌握了相关领域的基础理论和专业知识，具有较强的科研工作能力，在网络协议一致性测试例的设计的研究方面做出了有一定创新性和实用价值的研究成果。 论文组织合理，叙述清晰，文字简洁流畅，理论与实践结合得较好。达到了硕士学位论文的学术水平，同意进行论文答辩。 论文总体评价：2票优秀，2票良好，1票一般，5票一致同意答辩 按照这个格式结合你的论文写

问题五：《审稿意见怎么写》 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：

（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

根据以上三点，你可以适当发挥。

提起审稿，许多人认为所谓的审稿就是受期刊编辑的委托，对一篇论文作出正确的评价。这一点大凡大家都知道，为什么呢？许多博友可能都不同程度地参与过审稿工作而已。那么，期刊编辑如何选择审稿专家，专家如何审阅稿件，即如何正确评价一篇论文，专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。

问题六：审稿意见说论文写作较差，论文应该怎么改 文章进入审稿流程后，得到的结果无非是大修、小修、拒稿及接收四种情况。小修与接收是最好的结局（小修基本就等同于接收）。40%的论文在大修后接收。但是，相当一部分论文会被拒稿。SCI论文拒稿，该如何修改？这是一个困扰科研工作者的问题。很大一部分作者在收到拒稿的消息后，很多作者认为审稿人的意见合理，但是时间不允许修改，直接转投到其他期刊。这是非常不合理的。要知道拒稿的论文在经过其他审稿人审理时，也会得到类似的审稿意见。还不如，在接到拒稿信后就开始修改，尽早解决问题。再者，有时候审稿人的意见不尽合理，可以适当申辩。因此，多数拒稿SCI论文，可从以下几种方式选择解决之道： 1.如果文章拒稿是因为数据或分析有严重缺陷，如样本量不足等。这类文章可以先放一放，等找到更广泛的证据支持或有了更明确的结论后，再将修改的文章投稿至相应的期刊。期刊编辑会考虑重新受理。有些作者存在侥幸的心理，认为换个期刊后审稿人或许不会找出数据或分析层面的不足。这种几率非常小，毕竟论文的数据处理及分析方式决定了结果的可靠性。 2.如果被拒论文不是文章中的数据或分析不足，而是重要性或创新点缺乏。那么，作者就要仔细考虑审稿人的意见并认真修改，转投到影响因子该该刊低一点的期刊尝试。不同期刊对论文的创新点要求不一，作者投稿前有必要了解其刊发要求，进而缩短收稿周期。 3.如果是因为审稿人审稿时不够公正所致的拒稿，作者可以礼貌地申辩下。审稿人有时也会犯错误，并非源于专业知识，而是因为有些时候期刊的编辑找的审稿人未必是作者这个领域的专家。即便他们的审稿意见看似不够专业，我们也要礼貌地申辩。如果作者对否定有异议，可以向编辑或主编提出自己的意见。只要自己是正确的就应该坚持，这就是学术本身的意义所在。在回复中要委婉地表达自己的意见。如果编辑同意作者的意见，论文可以重新进入到新的一轮审稿程度。 4.从自身找原因，仔细修改。多数作者的拒稿多源于文章构架的不够合理，进而造成文章意义不够突出。拒稿后，着重进行文章结构的调整。尤其是讨论部分，很多作者的讨论是对结果的再陈述，但实际上写讨论也要与购物一样，讲究货比三家。只有将自身所得数据与既往结果进行比较，才能突出本研究的优势所在。这就需要作者，多看些相关的文献，挖掘其他研究与本研究的衔接之处。

问题七：论文审稿意见什么意思 你的文章达不到发表的标准。

如果你还是坚持想发表，要按照附件的要求进行修改，并且在6周内重新提交PDF版本的论文，否则视为放弃。

问题八：论文评审意见怎么写 评审时,请参照以下几方面提出意见 对论文质量的评价,可以参考如下评阅标准: (1)论文选题与综述:对国民经济,科学技术社会实践的理论意义或实用价值,阅读是否广泛,综述是否全面,是否掌握国内外动态(20%)(2)基础理论和专门知识:是否有理论分析及实验验证,立论是否准确,成果是否突出,工作量是否足够,是否掌握坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识(30%)(3)科研能力与创造性:是否有新见解,立论与成果是否反映出具有较强的科研能力和创造性等 (40%)(4)写作能力:条理是否清晰,层次是否分明,论文格式是否规范,学风是否严谨等(10%).

问题九：论文审稿意见一般从哪些方面提问题 格式内容等等咯

肯定大多数是内容啊

我们这边可以提供修改意见

---