|
|
发表于 2009-3-1 23:37:03
|
显示全部楼层
一般，如果你投过稿，你的信息编辑部就保留了，会约你审稿，并不代表什么，你觉得不合适可及时推辞，他们下次不找你就是了。
审稿首先要读懂文章，否则，面对作者的反驳会很丢面子的。
第二，如果对一个问题的判断觉得没有把握，一定要看相关文献，所以审稿期一个月是起码的。
第三，没有问题也要找出点问题来，所谓鸡蛋里面挑骨头。这不是找茬，而是对学术负责，对作者提供帮助。你看了人家的最新研究成果，总该意思意思给点回报吧。
审稿意见没有固定格式。一般分接受、接受但要修改后重审、不接受。可左可右的向左靠，认为有问题不能发表但又吃不准的可取中间的选择。
Ex. 1
The paper contributes an analytical solution of the transient temperature response of crossflow heat exchangers with zero core thermal capacitance, which is a limiting case of the Spigas’ solution. Although one can calculate the transient response of an exchanger with very small core thermal capacitance by using the Spigas’ solution, the solution for the limiting case cannot be obtained from the Spigas’ solution. Besides, the present solution for the limiting case is simpler than the available solution. Therefore as a technical note this paper is suitable and acceptable.
Minor revisions:
(1) In pp. 7, line 6,
“… using equations (6) and (7) for the integrations gives the sought responses.”
should be
“… using equations (6) and (9) for the integrations gives the sought responses”
(2) In pp. 8, line 13,
“These four steady state solutions are attained irrespective of the values of Va and Vb although generally when t>1 if Va and Vb are not infinite.”
It is better to say “when t>>1 ” by considering the possible cases for small values of Va and Vb as have been shown in (Spiga and Spiga, 1992).
(3) It is suggested that the definitions of Va and Vb be explicitly given in the paper although they are the same as those in (Spiga and Spiga, 1992).
Ex. 2
This paper is not acceptable and should be rejected.
The problems involved in this manuscript are equivalent to those of the transient response of parallel-flow and counterflow heat exchangers without phase change. To solve such problems one can simply take the temperature of the two-phase fluid as another constant ambient condition. Therefore the main point of the manuscript dealing with the phase change in one fluid as is illustrated in Point 3, Page 3 is of little value and significance.
For such problems a general method has been given in Ref. [1]. References [2-3] give good examples of the parallel-flow and counterflow heat exchangers. References [3-5] deal with the transient response of parallel-flow and counterflow heat exchangers directly but are not mentioned in the manuscript. According to these references one cannot find new valuable technical contribution from this manuscript.
Reference
1.Roetzel, W., Transient Analysis in Heat Exchangers, proceedings of the ICHMT International Symposium on New Development in Heat Exchangers, Lisbon, 1993; published in New Developments in Heat Exchangers, pp. 547-575, Eds.: Afgan, N., et al, Gordon and Breach Publishers, OPA Amsterdam B. V., 1996.
2.Romie, F. E., Transient Response of the Parallel-Flow Heat Exchanger, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.107, pp.727-730, 1985.
3.Li, C. H., Exact Transient solutions of Parallel-Current Transfer Processes, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.108, pp.365-369, 1986.
4.Gvozdenac, D. D., Analytical Solution of Transient Response of Gas-to-Gas Parallel and Counterflow Heat Exchangers, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.109, pp.848-855, 1987.
5.Gvozdenac, D. D., Transient Response of the Parallel Flow Heat Exchanger with Finite Wall Capacitance, Ingenier-Archiv, Vol.60, pp.481-490, 1990.
Ex. 3
Further Comments
(1) In the manuscript a computerized procedure is developed for optimal design of multipurpose batch chemical plants based on the studies of Ivanov et al and Vaklieva-Bancheva et al. It is of interest in process engineering. The manuscript is acceptable. However, necessary revisions suggested as follows are expected.
(2) The data given in Section 5.1 are obviously based on an example from the literature. But the authors did not illustrate the problem before. Therefore Section 6 should be put in front of Section 5.1. The sensitivity analysis in Section 5.1 should be transferred to Section 7.
(3) The authors used the example given by Vaklieva-Bancheva et al for comparison purposes. However, the comparison between the total cost obtained by the authors and that given by Vaklieva-Bancheva et al do not appear in the manuscript. Such a comparison of total cost under the same conditions is necessary.
(4) The total cost should NOT increase with the decrease of the time penalty. That means that a shorter total time would yield a higher total cost. Why the total cost for time penalty being 0.05 in Table 5.5 is higher than that for time penalty being 0.1?
(5) The grid search algorithm used in the manuscript is an enumeration method and cannot be considered as a development. It might be possible to use the grid search algorithm to find a suitable initial point for an optimizing solution procedure.
(6) Minor corrections are marked in the manuscript.
（这是从前写的东西的底稿，仅供参考） |
|
发表于 2009-3-1 19:52:28
发表于 2009-3-1 20:12:10
