一篇Carbon论文的审稿意见和回复
最近捷报频传，又收到了一篇Carbon论文接受的消息。这篇文章是关于石墨烯晶界的Kapitza热阻的分子动力学模拟的。论文题目为
Kapitza thermal resistance across individual grain boundaries in graphene。
论文亮点：
1）用相场晶体（Phase field crystal）法产生了从0度到60度夹角的高质量晶界。一共13个长800纳米、宽25纳米的样品。我以后会在Zenodo公开这些样品的坐标文件。
2）用非平衡分子动力学（NEMD）方法计算了所有样品的Kapitza热阻，其中用到的MD程序是我写的GPUMD 程序（https://github.com/brucefan1983/GPUMD）。我以后会在程序手册中给一个具体例子。
3）对经典结果进行了量子修正，解释了之前NEMD结果和量子输运（Landauer-Buttiker方法）结果的差别。该量子修正不同于很多人印象中的那个修正温度的方法，而是一个新的方法，比较适合于缺陷散射（例如这里的晶界散射）起主导的情形。
4）该文与之前被Nano Letters接受的论文（http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b01742）是互为补充的：那里研究具有很多晶粒的多晶石墨烯，而这里研究单独的晶界。相关结论也是融洽的。实际上，我们本来准备只写一篇论文发表的，但我（博士后）和Carbon的第一作者（博士在读）都很需要第一作者的论文，所以就写了两篇文章。现在回想一下，如果只写一篇论文，可能很难做到在一篇文章中专注于一个中心思想。
本文投稿、审稿的大致过程：
Carbon不像Nano Letters 那么高傲，所以给编辑的Cover Letter不用搞得太酷。我们的稿子在编辑手里待了一个星期就送审了。大概过了一个月就收到了两个审稿意见。第一个审稿人一看就是个同行，问了几个他/她感兴趣的问题，并建议增加几个参考文献。对于这些问题，我们觉得回答一下即可，没有必要做出任何修改。这相当于免费给审稿人上上课。至于增加参考文献，我们一般并不反对，但我们会仔细核实审稿人建议的参考文献是否真的相关。例如，我们发现第一个审稿人在第三点评论中指出的参考文献和我们的文章关系不是那么密切，就没有引用。第二个审稿人建议直接接受，我们只要感谢即可。很有意思的是，我们最近两篇接受的文章都有一个审稿人认为非常完美，不用做任何修改。知道为什么吗？因为我们的文章一般要修改半年才投稿，不会出现任何写作上的问题，哪怕是一个标点符号。稿子修回后进行了二审。第一个审稿人说很满意，于是顺利接受。不要以为当审稿人说“作者应该xxx”时你真的就应该那么做。对有些你不同意的评论，只要有力地论述自己正确的观点即可。可以说，对这篇Carbon论文我们没有作任何修改，除了增加几个参考文献。
审稿意见和我们的回复如下：
Ms. Ref. No.: CARBON-D-17-02212
Title: Kapitza thermalresistance across individual grain boundaries in graphene
Dear Dr.
Prof.
XXX,Thank you for a rapid processing of our manuscript exclusively submitted for publication in Carbon.
We hereby submit a revised version of the manuscript “Kapitza thermal resistance across individual grain boundaries in graphene” by Khatereh Azizi, Petri Hirvonen, Zheyong Fan, Ari Harju, Ken R. Elder, Tapio Ala-Nissila, and S. Mehdi Vaez Allaei (Manuscript Ref. No.: Carbon-D-17-02212). We thank the reviewers for their constructive criticism that has helped us to improve the manuscript. Since the changes to the manuscript are relatively minor we hope that our work can now be accepted for publication.
Yours Sincerely,Zheyong Fan
On behalf of the co-authors
Reply to the First Referee --
Carbon-D-17-02212
Reviewer#1: The authors reported a theoretical study on Kapitza resistance of bicrystalline graphene with different GB tilt angles using non-equilibrium molecular dynamic simulations. Kapitza resistance is a crucial quantity that is widely used to describe thermal transport across interfaces or GBs based on Fourier's law. The authors reveal that the Kapitza resistance strongly depends on the tilt angle of which the value could be varied up to one order of magnitude; yet the line tension of GB do not show significant dependence. They also demonstrate that the quantum correction to the classical MD results is of substantial importance, which should be applied in order to get more reasonable values. Finally, the Landauer-Butticker formula was employed to demonstrate that the corrected results are comparable with the quantum mechanics level calculations. Overall, to me, this is a good theoretical work, and the manuscript is well written and clear, rendering people can easily understand their contributions. For simulation part, the results are reproducible (I have done the same simulation for 21.78 GB, and got similar result of un-corrected Kapitza resistance); however, the authors should address the following concerning before I can recommend it a publication in Carbon.
[加西网正招聘多名全职sales 待遇优]
无评论不新闻，发表一下您的意见吧
Kapitza thermal resistance across individual grain boundaries in graphene。
论文亮点：
1）用相场晶体（Phase field crystal）法产生了从0度到60度夹角的高质量晶界。一共13个长800纳米、宽25纳米的样品。我以后会在Zenodo公开这些样品的坐标文件。
2）用非平衡分子动力学（NEMD）方法计算了所有样品的Kapitza热阻，其中用到的MD程序是我写的GPUMD 程序（https://github.com/brucefan1983/GPUMD）。我以后会在程序手册中给一个具体例子。
3）对经典结果进行了量子修正，解释了之前NEMD结果和量子输运（Landauer-Buttiker方法）结果的差别。该量子修正不同于很多人印象中的那个修正温度的方法，而是一个新的方法，比较适合于缺陷散射（例如这里的晶界散射）起主导的情形。
4）该文与之前被Nano Letters接受的论文（http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b01742）是互为补充的：那里研究具有很多晶粒的多晶石墨烯，而这里研究单独的晶界。相关结论也是融洽的。实际上，我们本来准备只写一篇论文发表的，但我（博士后）和Carbon的第一作者（博士在读）都很需要第一作者的论文，所以就写了两篇文章。现在回想一下，如果只写一篇论文，可能很难做到在一篇文章中专注于一个中心思想。
本文投稿、审稿的大致过程：
Carbon不像Nano Letters 那么高傲，所以给编辑的Cover Letter不用搞得太酷。我们的稿子在编辑手里待了一个星期就送审了。大概过了一个月就收到了两个审稿意见。第一个审稿人一看就是个同行，问了几个他/她感兴趣的问题，并建议增加几个参考文献。对于这些问题，我们觉得回答一下即可，没有必要做出任何修改。这相当于免费给审稿人上上课。至于增加参考文献，我们一般并不反对，但我们会仔细核实审稿人建议的参考文献是否真的相关。例如，我们发现第一个审稿人在第三点评论中指出的参考文献和我们的文章关系不是那么密切，就没有引用。第二个审稿人建议直接接受，我们只要感谢即可。很有意思的是，我们最近两篇接受的文章都有一个审稿人认为非常完美，不用做任何修改。知道为什么吗？因为我们的文章一般要修改半年才投稿，不会出现任何写作上的问题，哪怕是一个标点符号。稿子修回后进行了二审。第一个审稿人说很满意，于是顺利接受。不要以为当审稿人说“作者应该xxx”时你真的就应该那么做。对有些你不同意的评论，只要有力地论述自己正确的观点即可。可以说，对这篇Carbon论文我们没有作任何修改，除了增加几个参考文献。
审稿意见和我们的回复如下：
Ms. Ref. No.: CARBON-D-17-02212
Title: Kapitza thermalresistance across individual grain boundaries in graphene
Dear Dr.
Prof.
XXX,Thank you for a rapid processing of our manuscript exclusively submitted for publication in Carbon.
We hereby submit a revised version of the manuscript “Kapitza thermal resistance across individual grain boundaries in graphene” by Khatereh Azizi, Petri Hirvonen, Zheyong Fan, Ari Harju, Ken R. Elder, Tapio Ala-Nissila, and S. Mehdi Vaez Allaei (Manuscript Ref. No.: Carbon-D-17-02212). We thank the reviewers for their constructive criticism that has helped us to improve the manuscript. Since the changes to the manuscript are relatively minor we hope that our work can now be accepted for publication.
Yours Sincerely,Zheyong Fan
On behalf of the co-authors
Reply to the First Referee --
Carbon-D-17-02212
Reviewer#1: The authors reported a theoretical study on Kapitza resistance of bicrystalline graphene with different GB tilt angles using non-equilibrium molecular dynamic simulations. Kapitza resistance is a crucial quantity that is widely used to describe thermal transport across interfaces or GBs based on Fourier's law. The authors reveal that the Kapitza resistance strongly depends on the tilt angle of which the value could be varied up to one order of magnitude; yet the line tension of GB do not show significant dependence. They also demonstrate that the quantum correction to the classical MD results is of substantial importance, which should be applied in order to get more reasonable values. Finally, the Landauer-Butticker formula was employed to demonstrate that the corrected results are comparable with the quantum mechanics level calculations. Overall, to me, this is a good theoretical work, and the manuscript is well written and clear, rendering people can easily understand their contributions. For simulation part, the results are reproducible (I have done the same simulation for 21.78 GB, and got similar result of un-corrected Kapitza resistance); however, the authors should address the following concerning before I can recommend it a publication in Carbon.
[加西网正招聘多名全职sales 待遇优]
| 分享: |
| 注： | 在此页阅读全文 |
推荐: