Technicality of the paper should improve 4. Journal of Scientific Communications, 163, 51—59. Is this a more reasonable and better reason to do so? I suspect that this is the way of manipulation to reject the submitted paper. Respected sir Unfortunately i could nt found this blog before responding to the review of my paper. Decision in Process The Editor has registered a decision in the system. Usually the editor can give you a few more weeks.
Subsections should be numbered 1. Figure captions Ensure that each illustration has a caption. Please clearly indicate the given name s and family name s of each author and check that all names are accurately spelled. I just wanted to let you can find some useful tips for finding journals and submitting papers on our Elsevier. It is always possible to answer the reviewer by explaining why the comparison is not fair. The art of writing a scientific article.
Cognition aims to publish material that is highly innovative with respect to advancing theory, and this summary may be used to inform the triage process. After that they will sent us a formal acceptance letter followed by billing info. Regards, Elmerry Dear professor Philippe, Thank you for this article and the efforts you are doing to help researchers. He probably just forgot that he had add something else before… Best, Philippe Dear Prof. What possible recourses do I have? Detailed disclosures as part of a separate Declaration of Interest form, which forms part of the journal's official records. Cognition is launching an experiment to provide an author support fund, and while the details may change, the fund will start with an initial two-year commitment.
They may also be used to associate browsing information to customer records. Pertaining to the email below, we are investigating on this issue and will get back to you with an update at the earliest. We have addressed all the comments as explained below. As for the comparison with optimization based approaches, you have two options: to do it or to not do it and give some good reasons. Could you please guide me on how to respond to him? And a reviewer that find my study quite technical and the journal i submited not the suitable one Best regards Dear Prof Philippe, Thank you for this article and investing your time to further help people with specific problems.
In this manuscript, a novel mathematical method and an improved formulation were proposed to address a significant issue in vibration. So I sent a reminder asking for the status of my manuscript. And in the end, the paper was published. That is a complicated situation. So my query is that will my paper be accepted? I spend one month to address all of their concerns, as the reviewer asked lots of questions.
For color reproduction in print, you will receive information regarding the costs from Elsevier after receipt of your accepted article. Details of are available online. These speed metrics if available in Journal Insights for this title are displayed: - The average number of weeks it takes for an article to be reviewed - The average number of weeks it takes for an article to reach key publication points in the production process Reach Our journals have global authorship and readership. Please use to write your Data in Brief. At least they did not reject the paper. The references may not be complete for all, but when citing, you should get the complete reference from the Internet and cite the complete reference.
Then for the comment about reducing the length, you may consider that it only applies to the section that are not mentioned by reviewer 2. The paper will be send for another refereeing round 3. Try to add more sentences and paragraphs to explain in more details. The 2nd round of comment from reviewer 1 is simply that the manuscript is not significant for the journal while there is no further comment from reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your kind help.