很多人花很多时间创造了一项“技术”，例如某算法。但是这样的文章能发吗？多半会收到这样的审稿意见：这文章有科学价值吗？。
例子一
What is this paper really about? How has scientific understanding of the Universe been improved by this work? Even if this is a “techniques” paper, it needs to demonstrate CLEARLY how well the technique works now and will work for future data, and how that future work will improve scientific understanding of the Universe. The answers to these questions are not clear in the paper, and without clear answers, the paper is likely to be rejected by a journal referee.
修改：
Additions to Introduction to emphasize:
- This paper emphasizes methodology to 。。。
- Show simulations to test
The conclusion section has been re-written:
- ‘demonstrated a range of strategies for 。。。（现状1）
- List the strategies that are used。。。 （现状2）
- Point out success in reaching 。。。。（成功1）
- Point out that this is good enough to 。。。（成功2）
- Point out that we did well for 20 Mpc, but need improvements for 200 Mpc （不足）
经过上述修改，文章具有价值的结构就有了，剩下的就是如何忽悠 成功1 成功2 了。。。
例子二
In other words, I feel that the authors need to bring the results obtained for the xxx into context,
discussing implications and insights on yy populations. Even if the aim of the authors is to demonstrate the applicability of their method, they need to discuss what new insights are derived from their analysis in our understanding of xy galaxies.
升级文章：
Comparison xxx with yyy
Comparison xxx with yyyy .
we suggested that Ellipticals contribute a significant population for 。。。。, explain the puzzle of 。。。。 and confirm the nature of 。。。 by our method 。 We also argue that our models are needed to investigate the detail properties of xxx .
39,541回应