毕业论文心得分享我的投稿经历-酸甜苦辣
合集下载
相关主题
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
models. Since the used nextnano3 program is available since a
couple of years, I wonder why this has not been done earlier.
The authors emphasize an application of their results. Having
In contrast to earlier studies, it is now possible to derive the
potential landshape without any adjustable parameter. The results
still agree with earlier investigations using simpler phenomenological
However, the authors do not show or even discuss how this can
be achieved. Therefore I believe that in the present form the paper
is not suitable for publication.
Ms. Ref. No.: ××××××
Title: ×××××
Physics Letters A
Dear professor ××,
Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.
Should this not be the gate instead of the bias voltage?
4) Page 4, paragraph starting with 'As we know, in the ...'
'... To be different from previous calculations ...' replace by
这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到Physics Letters A上，在经历了Technical check，with editor，under review后，于三月二十号收到编辑的决定信，当时就傻了－拒稿！受打击了。下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与虫友们分享，一方面我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享，我想我没有理由不拿出来哈！同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！好了，废话说了一大堆，不说了，下面是Physics Letters A 的审稿意见：
level?
在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5）和6)意见非常好，后来自己想想，决定把文章来个彻底的修改。
1. 改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了几个英语的语法。这个很容易改。
2. 改动文章的结构。换了很多图。因为我们做的是实验和理论计算的结合。首先，我加了实验。把我们实验当中照的有关样品的结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。
'... with fixed x = 1050 nm and ...'. Skip the '.0'. One could add
that this is exactly at the center of the device.
3) At the end of the same paragraph is '... once the bias is below ...'
for your manuscript would be very helpful.
Please note that in doing a preliminary character count, we have
found that your manuscript is too long for the short paper sections
The numbering of the two density axes looks rather odd. Could it not
be done with integers, like 3 instead of 3.2 or 3.0?
9) Figure 5 (b)
Should there not be an anomaly or kink in the potential near the Fermi
on application and material science. Therefore, a more detailed
letter as to what new and significant physics is presented in your
manuscript and why Physical Review B is the most appropriate journal
the complete potential landshape might help, in the future,
to better understand the quantized acoustoelectric current in
SETSAW devices and to improve their performance.
Dear Dr. ×××,
We acknowledge the receipt of the above manuscript submitted to
the Rapid Communications section of Physical Review B.
We have examined your manuscript and it appears to be quite focused
For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
×××（编辑名）
Rev. B 73, 125326 (2006)). Possibly, one could also compare the
present data with 3D simulations of quantum dots (Vasileska et al.,
Semicond. Sci. Technol. 13, A37 (1998)).
The authors should consider the following suggestions, questions,
and remarks.
1) Page 1, first paragraph
'... due to the negatively applied gate voltage ...'. It is the SAW
that drives the electrons through the contact, not the gate voltage.
Maybe replace this sentence by '..., depending on the applied gate
voltage'.
2) Page 3, paragraph starting with 'Generally, the quantized ...'
or less the same. One could, for example, add another figure, or
insert, to show the potential height versus gate voltage.
6) How do these theoretical results of potential height versus gate
of our journal. In view of this and the above, we feel that it
will be more productive if we consider this as a regular article
when we receive a persuasive response to the above concern. ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱou may
这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会忘记的5.12四川汶川大地震。受地震的影响，文章的修改拖了三四个月。改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆子也大起来了，于是就投到了Physical Review B中的Rapid Communications板块，很快编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为regular paper 投Physical Review B。这里我还是把编辑的信贴出来与大家分享。
7) Figure 1，It would be better to mark the distance between the two metal gates
as the relevant parameter, and not the size of one gate.
8) Figure 3
3. 把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面的审稿意见就提出来了，这点后面再说。也就是满足了审稿意见6）。然后把计算的势垒高度画成与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5）
4. 加了理论计算声电电流。这个在PLA稿中没有，我们的计算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式的形式。
Editor
Physics Letters A
Reviewers' comments:
The authors present results of the 3D electron potential of
a gated quantum point contact in a AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure.
JAP论文接收
分享我的投稿经历－酸甜苦辣
guohuazhong
今天收到邮件，我的一篇Journal of Applied Physics 论文已被接收，心情当时还是有点激动。虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大概2.2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇SCI论文，但回想这一年发文章的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。
voltage compare with experiments? There exists at least one
report to determine the potential height of quantum-point contacts
below pinch-off as function of gate voltage (Gloos et al., Phys.
'... In contrast to previous calculations ...'.
5) The strongly different behaviour above and below the pinch-off
voltage is not obvious for the non-experts. All curves look more
couple of years, I wonder why this has not been done earlier.
The authors emphasize an application of their results. Having
In contrast to earlier studies, it is now possible to derive the
potential landshape without any adjustable parameter. The results
still agree with earlier investigations using simpler phenomenological
However, the authors do not show or even discuss how this can
be achieved. Therefore I believe that in the present form the paper
is not suitable for publication.
Ms. Ref. No.: ××××××
Title: ×××××
Physics Letters A
Dear professor ××,
Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.
Should this not be the gate instead of the bias voltage?
4) Page 4, paragraph starting with 'As we know, in the ...'
'... To be different from previous calculations ...' replace by
这篇论文是我在2008年二月份完成的最初稿，于二月九号投到Physics Letters A上，在经历了Technical check，with editor，under review后，于三月二十号收到编辑的决定信，当时就傻了－拒稿！受打击了。下面是编辑的信以及审稿意见，我想把它贴出来与虫友们分享，一方面我认为，通过看审稿人的意见，可以帮助大家更好地写作，提高自己的科研水平和能力，另一方面也是答谢小木虫上很多无私的虫友们，是他们将自己的投稿经历贴在网上，与大家分享，我想我没有理由不拿出来哈！同时，也希望小木虫的虫子们能继续发扬这种精神，大家同舟共济，共同提高！好了，废话说了一大堆，不说了，下面是Physics Letters A 的审稿意见：
level?
在仔细读了审稿人的意见后，我觉得审稿人提出的5）和6)意见非常好，后来自己想想，决定把文章来个彻底的修改。
1. 改动文章的英语，审稿人提出了几个英语的语法。这个很容易改。
2. 改动文章的结构。换了很多图。因为我们做的是实验和理论计算的结合。首先，我加了实验。把我们实验当中照的有关样品的结构补充到了文章当中，比如分裂栅的结构，叉指的结构等等。
'... with fixed x = 1050 nm and ...'. Skip the '.0'. One could add
that this is exactly at the center of the device.
3) At the end of the same paragraph is '... once the bias is below ...'
for your manuscript would be very helpful.
Please note that in doing a preliminary character count, we have
found that your manuscript is too long for the short paper sections
The numbering of the two density axes looks rather odd. Could it not
be done with integers, like 3 instead of 3.2 or 3.0?
9) Figure 5 (b)
Should there not be an anomaly or kink in the potential near the Fermi
on application and material science. Therefore, a more detailed
letter as to what new and significant physics is presented in your
manuscript and why Physical Review B is the most appropriate journal
the complete potential landshape might help, in the future,
to better understand the quantized acoustoelectric current in
SETSAW devices and to improve their performance.
Dear Dr. ×××,
We acknowledge the receipt of the above manuscript submitted to
the Rapid Communications section of Physical Review B.
We have examined your manuscript and it appears to be quite focused
For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
×××（编辑名）
Rev. B 73, 125326 (2006)). Possibly, one could also compare the
present data with 3D simulations of quantum dots (Vasileska et al.,
Semicond. Sci. Technol. 13, A37 (1998)).
The authors should consider the following suggestions, questions,
and remarks.
1) Page 1, first paragraph
'... due to the negatively applied gate voltage ...'. It is the SAW
that drives the electrons through the contact, not the gate voltage.
Maybe replace this sentence by '..., depending on the applied gate
voltage'.
2) Page 3, paragraph starting with 'Generally, the quantized ...'
or less the same. One could, for example, add another figure, or
insert, to show the potential height versus gate voltage.
6) How do these theoretical results of potential height versus gate
of our journal. In view of this and the above, we feel that it
will be more productive if we consider this as a regular article
when we receive a persuasive response to the above concern. ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱou may
这个修改可是个相当漫长的过程，期间我们经历了人生一辈子都不会忘记的5.12四川汶川大地震。受地震的影响，文章的修改拖了三四个月。改完之后，由于自我感觉良好，所以胆子也大起来了，于是就投到了Physical Review B中的Rapid Communications板块，很快编辑就回信了，客气地说我的文章太长了，然后建议我修改后作为regular paper 投Physical Review B。这里我还是把编辑的信贴出来与大家分享。
7) Figure 1，It would be better to mark the distance between the two metal gates
as the relevant parameter, and not the size of one gate.
8) Figure 3
3. 把我们理论计算得到的在二维电子气中的势垒高度和我们的实验做了对比，遗憾的是我们的实验当时只做了三条曲线，后面的审稿意见就提出来了，这点后面再说。也就是满足了审稿意见6）。然后把计算的势垒高度画成与分裂栅电压的关系，满足了审稿意见5）
4. 加了理论计算声电电流。这个在PLA稿中没有，我们的计算所用到的势场是我们自己计算得到的，而不是用简单的解析表达式的形式。
Editor
Physics Letters A
Reviewers' comments:
The authors present results of the 3D electron potential of
a gated quantum point contact in a AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructure.
JAP论文接收
分享我的投稿经历－酸甜苦辣
guohuazhong
今天收到邮件，我的一篇Journal of Applied Physics 论文已被接收，心情当时还是有点激动。虽然这个杂志的影响因子不是很高，大概2.2左右吧，这也不是我的第一篇SCI论文，但回想这一年发文章的坎坎坷坷，以及亲身经历的四川大地震，心里还是有很多的感触。
voltage compare with experiments? There exists at least one
report to determine the potential height of quantum-point contacts
below pinch-off as function of gate voltage (Gloos et al., Phys.
'... In contrast to previous calculations ...'.
5) The strongly different behaviour above and below the pinch-off
voltage is not obvious for the non-experts. All curves look more