期刊发表_期刊投稿_问题解决平台

投的oe还在peerreview中都还是waiting状态但是收到了一个optics continuum的介绍这是暗示我要转投吗

大伙儿有遇到过Small杂志二审周期很长的情况吗？一审大概30天左右，三个审稿人，给的意见都是Top15%，编辑给的大修。4月10号提交的修改稿，到现在一直都是under review，将近二个月了，有遇到这种情况吗？每一天几乎都是在煎熬的等待啊

非线性动力系统控制与同步投稿推荐

非线性动力系统控制与同步，求推荐免费的好投的EI！！！数学类和自动化类和工程技术类都可以！！

iThenticate查重

有没有帮忙用iThenticate查重的呀？

英文论文查重，欢迎来咨询。每篇文章20

英文论文查重

求推荐合适期刊

想投一个sci，不在意质量，论文内容是演化博弈论做的农业经济发展，已经被拒麻了…

中科院分区和JCR分区怎么看时间

Microbiology Spectrum的Under Evaluation是什么意思？

想问问大家，论文转投Microbiology Spectrum后现在状态一直是Under Evaluation，已经一周了，这个到底是个什么状态啊？

地质灾害论文投稿求助

请问有哪些适合地质灾害投稿的普刊或者影响因子低一点的核心？

拒稿审稿人的意见需要回复吗？

投了一个挺不错的期刊。历时四五个月，两个审稿人修改，一个审稿人认为创新性不够拒稿。但是编辑还是给了修改机会，那么在回复审稿人意见时还需要回复拒稿的那位审稿人吗？

分享一个审稿意见，不会审稿的可以直接抄

祝这位审稿人身体健康！

Some comments are provided below that could be helpful for the authors to improve their manuscript.
1. The introduction is weak. The motivation for the research is missing.
2. The author should highlight the research objectives of the research in the introduction separately. Also, how the authors would address their need to be mentioned.
3. The manuscript lacks flow. The authors should make more efforts in presenting the work more systematically and clearly. The authors(s) have cited old citations throughout the manuscript. The author(s) are also suggested to includes references from the latest publications (year 2022).
4. English (language, sentence structure and grammar) needs improvement.
5. The introduction lacks in gaining attention and highlighting the need of the study. The author(s) should mention research objectives of the research separately. More relevant references are needed to strengthen the intro section。
6. The findings of the study need to be more elaborate. This section needs to be developed and supported by previous work. The discussion needs to be improvised with a theoretical contribution. The findings of the discussion need to be strengthened with the previous research work.
7. The discussion needs to be improvised with theoretical contribution.
8. The conclusion is very weak. It should also be an extrapolation of the key findings from the research and not a summary. So, there should be conclusions around the background theory, data theory/analysis and, key outcomes. The authors should have included the following sub-sections within the conclusion section with more details:
* Implications to theory and practice should be clearly stated;
* Key lessons learnt;
* Limitations of this research;
9. The selection of the case location should be more elaborated.
10. Proofread the whole manuscript as many typos and grammar errors are present.
11. Future research directions should be improved; in that, they should stem from the awareness of the limitations and opening avenues related to the obtained outcomes
12. Author(s) should try to include some novel implications and unique contributions in the paper.
Good Luck