Abstract 8月15日早上被老板短信叫醒,文章被接受了,心中都不知究竟是何滋味,投稿历时了8个月,第一次投稿的时候还是2010年...现在终于闲下来,写写这8个月的过程...分享一下 Introduction 2年前来到这个实验室,经历的最初半年的迷茫期.才开始正式的开始做实验. 第一个项目是教授给的,就一个方向.然后自己找资料,做实验.由于是实验室第一批学生,没有师兄师姐. 还记得自己第一次合成成功时候的喜悦,还有第一次测到自己需要的数据时候的欢喜.中间也经历了各种不爽...不过到现在,算是有个很好的结果了 Result and Discussion 文章写好之后,在去年10月10日的时候投出,第一次试的是 Angew Chem. 现在还记得wiley那不给力的投稿系统,一直就会显示submitted...过了10天才敢想想,是送出去审了吧...不过1个月之后就悲剧了. 直接被一个审稿人拒掉了.教授想抗议一下,我想想算了吧,方向看着不太合适. 也不知道那时候为什么对ACS Nano情有独钟,就挑了这个改写成了article. 终于在2011年1月1日的时候投了出去,本以为新年有个新开始,结果悲剧的忽略了美国当时是2010年...笨的要死啊... 28号就收到了回信,居然4个审稿人...修的,改投的,拒的都有.编辑拒绝了 Journal: ACS Nano (ID nn-2010-03635w) > Title: "xxxxxx" > Authors: xxxxxx > > Dear Prof. Dr. xxx, > > Enclosed are the reviews for your manuscript. Unfortunately, the reviewers have found significant problems that render the manuscript unacceptable for publication in ACS Nano. > > My recommendation is that you consider these comments in full and consider the possibility of publishing in another journal. > > Sincerely, > > Prof. Nicholas Kotov > Associate Editor > ACS Nano > > ------------------------------------ > > Reviewer: 1 > > Recommendation: Reconsider after major revisions noted. > > Comments: > The English is atrocious in the title and in places in the abstract. > I suggest ACS Nano suggest that the authors greatly improve the > English, and then re-submit. > > > Additional Questions: > Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No > > If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It could be improved to be in the top 15% with appropriate revisions. > > Is it appealing to a broad audience?: Yes > > Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: Yes > > Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: Yes > > Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes > > Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: Yes > > Significance: > > Novelty: > > Broad interest: > > Scholarly presentation: > > > Reviewer: 2 > > Recommendation: Publish in a different journal. > > Comments: > This work presents the results for the memory device made from rGO and Au particules linked to graphene sheet using chemical bond. While the results are intersting, I have several main issues with this work: 1) though the retention is ~900S and On and Off states could be kept in stable for 1000S, I do not think this memory device is practicul at all, considering the chemcial/morpholgy stability and reproductivity of this device and its fabrication; 2) I kind of do not like many wording in this paper, one good example for this is that there are many places in the paper saying the device was made of "less than 1nm of single or double rGO" or somthing like this.This is kind of misleading to me. Also related to this, what is the actual thickness of the active layer of the device and the rGO section in the device? 3) the memory property is bascially from the Au particule capactior memory property, so graphene actually does not play a major role here and I bet any other material with similar cond anchored with the Au particules with linker would give the similar results. > > Additional Questions: > Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No > > If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It could be improved to be in the top 15% with further work. > > Is it appealing to a broad audience?: Yes > > Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: Yes > > Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: No > > Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: No > > Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: Yes > > Significance: Moderate > > Novelty: Moderate > > Broad interest: High > > Scholarly presentation: Moderate > > > Reviewer: 3 > > Recommendation: Reject; it appears that publication in any form would be premature at this time. > > Comments: > This is not a practical device for any type of memory and the change in conductance is far too small to be worth further development. The GO materials are clearly highly defective based on Raman spectroscopy and the paper lacks novelty. > > Additional Questions: > Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No > > If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It is unlikely to be improved to be in the top 15%. > > Is it appealing to a broad audience?: No > > Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: Yes > > Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: No > > Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes > > Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: No > > Significance: Lowest > > Novelty: Moderate > > Broad interest: Lowest > > Scholarly presentation: Moderate > > > Reviewer: 4 > > Recommendation: Reconsider after major revisions noted. > > Comments: > In this manuscript, xxx et al. reported a novel device assembling gold nano-particles chemically bounded with reduced graphene oxides via a molecular linker MBDT. They found the non-linear hysteresis under voltage from -5 V to +5 V and stable write-multiple-read-erase-multiple-read cycles over 900 seconds and a long retention time over 1000 s, which could potentially offers applications in non-volatile memory electronics. This article presents an interesting study and made an attempt to synthesis the memory devices for nanoscale materials. The results are interesting and very useful if their demonstration is convincing. However, there need clarification on some of the statement in the manuscript before considering for a publication in ACS Nano. Here are some of my concerns: > > 1) The rGOs under topographical AFM is just 0.8 nm in height, how did the authors identify the rGOs in such a small size? > > 2) In line 24 page 12, the authors states: “The AuNPs would access the electrons, when the bias voltage was applied to the AuNP-frGO device, and the electrons could be trapped inside AuNPs because of the large energy barrier between the AuNPs with the rGOs. Consequently, these trapped electron carriers would remain inside the AuNPs for a relatively long time even after the applied bias was removed, resulting in a remarkable nonvolatile memory effect of the ……”. This statement clearly relies on how much the energy barrier between the AuNPs and the rGOs. Can the authors provide some evidence or estimation to support their statement? > > 3) The authors claimed that the AuNPs were covalently bonded with the rGOs via the MBDT, which is confirmed by XPS analyses. How is the XPS spectrum related to the newly formed sp3 bonds? And how many of the new chemical bonds could affect the XPS results quantitatively? > > > 4) In line 47 page 9, the authors said: “the I(V) characteristics of the device were measured by scanning applied voltages from 0 to -5 V and +5 V in a cycle”. This is not a clear statement. Which part of the device is being used to scan the electricity current and how did they measure the electricity current I(V)? This is critical in evaluating the memory effects. And what is the typical error bar for this type of measurement? > > 5) The authors found that without AuNPs or MBDT, the hysteresis did not occur and claimed that the covalent bonding between the two components is the necessary requirement for this type of memory effect. In their measurement, how did they make sure the connection between the AuNPs and rGOs was successful or not? what kind of approach did they use to check the linkage between these two components? > > 6) This is maybe not strictly related to the content of this paper. Have the authors tried other metals instead of Au? If so, what would be the results? If not, please state why they are interested in Au nano-particles rather than others. > > 7) The English needs to be improved in some sentences to be in a publishable format. > > > > Additional Questions: > Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No > > If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It could be improved to be in the top 15% with appropriate revisions. > > Is it appealing to a broad audience?: Yes > > Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: No > > Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: No > > Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes > > Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: No > > Significance: Top 5% > > Novelty: High > > Broad interest: High > > Scholarly presentation: Moderate 看上去还能挽救,就尝试写了rebuttal letter, 3月12号投出. 信是在太长就不在这贴出来了. 大致就是逐一客气的回复审稿人的意见,然后细心修改自己的文章.让文章变得更符合他们的要求. 编辑很给力,(衷心的感谢这个负责好心的编辑)最后把reject变成了reconsider, 我们希望编辑能够补充下实验,so 编辑最终决定给180天时间准备. 6月15日的时候投出大幅修改的文章,随后文章被分配编辑,并且换了个新的ID. 半个月后,2个原来的审稿人又审了一遍,一个小修,一个改投,一个编辑给了修改. Dear Prof. Dr. xxx: I am pleased to inform you that the reviews for your manuscript have now been received. I attach a file with reviewers and editor’s comments and a revision sheet. Please make appropriate changes to the manuscript and resubmit your revised manuscript. Please be sure to address all of Reviewer 2's concerns. Your revision is set to be due in 60 days. Please contact the editorial office if you need additional time. In addition to your revision, please supply a list of changes and rebuttals as requested below. The policy of ACS Nano is to ask one of the original reviewers to review your manuscript again. That reviewer will be supplied with all the reviewers’ comments. To revise your manuscript, log into ACS Paragon Plus at http://paragonplus.acs.org/login and select "My Authoring Activity". There you will find your manuscript title listed under "Revisions Requested by Editorial Office." Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. If you are replacing files, please remove the old version of the file from the manuscript before uploading the new file. When submitting your revised manuscript through ACS Paragon Plus, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the text box provided or by attaching a file containing your detailed responses to all of the points raised by the reviewers. Prior to submitting the manuscript, ensure that the manuscript addresses the following points: Remove highlighting from the manuscript file Put Latin words, phrases, and abbreviations in italics ("via","e.g.") Put reference titles in title case Remove issue numbers from references Terminate author lists with "et al." after ten authors Please make sure to submit your marked copy of the manuscript as Supplemental Material for Review. Do not include tracked changes on the final clean copy of your manuscript. 
 
Also please make sure that all authors listed on the manuscript are listed in your Paragon Plus submission in the same order and with the exact same spelling. Format: Your revised manuscript must adhere to ACS format, especially references. Note that in ACS Paragon Plus, authors have the option of embedding graphics into the manuscript or supplying graphics separately. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Sincerely, Prof. Nicholas Kotov Associate Editor ACS Nano ------------------------------------ Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 4 Recommendation: Publish in ACS Nano after minor revisions noted. Comments: In the manuscript, xxx et al. reported a novel device consists of mono-layer AuNPs chemically bounded with reduced graphene oxides via a molecular linker. They found the non-linear hysteresis under voltage from -5 V to +5 V and stable write-multiple-read-erase-multiple-read cycles over 1000 seconds and a long retention time over 700 s, which could potentially offer applications in non-volatile memory electronics. This article presents an interesting study and made an attempt to synthesis the memory devices for nanoscale materials. The results are interesting and very useful if their demonstration is convincing. The following are required to answer/correct before considering for a publication in ACS Nano: 1) In Fig. 2, the authors measured the XPS spectra as a function of binding energy. I was wondering how they measured binding energy? Is this supposed to be frequency? Did they do some quantity conversion? 2) The authors claimed that the chemical bonds between the AuNPs and rGO are the origin for the observed noticeable nonlinear hysteresis. What type of measurement did they use to confirm that the bond is chemical bonding rather than others, say van der waals? 3) In Fig. 3b, the author claimed that there is a shift between the Raman spectra of rGO sheet and rGO device. However, the reviewer cannot find the shift horizontally but vertically. The location of peaks does not change with respect to these two cases. 4) On page 5, the authors say: “a network of sp3 C-C bonds formed in the basal plane of rGOs (Figure 3b)”. How did the authors justify it is sp3 rather than sp2. Usually in graphene, the C-C bonds are sp2. 5) English in the text needs to be improved and proof reading should be done thoroughly. For example, “It was turned out that the rGO ….” on page 4 should read like “It turns out that the rGO …..” Additional Questions: Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It could be improved to be in the top 15% with appropriate revisions. Is it appealing to a broad audience?: Yes Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: Yes Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: Yes Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: Yes Significance: Top 5% Novelty: Top 5% Broad interest: Top 5% Scholarly presentation: High Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Publish in a different journal. Comments: Review report for nn-2011-xxxxxx I have read carefully all the comments from other earlier reviewers, and the rebuttal letter/revised ms by the authors. I have to say, in addition to the most of the major problems raised by previous reviewers, which are not addressed (“not a practical device”), I have some extra issues: 1) First, indeed, the authors added some new exp/data for vertical devices to support the original main conclusion, but no details for how these devices were fabricated. 2) I agree with it in the earlier comment: XPS cannot use as the conclusive evidence (such as S: 164> 162 eV, Au: 84>88 eV etc). 3) Indeed, the authors are right with this: “Based on the results from our control experiments (e.g., MBDT molecules-chemically immobilized rGO devices without AuNPs and AuNPs-physically immobilized-rGO devices without MBDT linkers), the charging effect associated from the AuNPs which were connected with MBDT linker caused the AuNPs-frGO device to operate nonvolatile memory behavior.31, 32 The charge state of AuNPs may lead to a space-charge field that prevents or accelerates carrier transport.” This is basically the main point of this paper. But the authors miss another side of the bigger picture: why use graphene here, as indicated by one of the previous reviewers? This question is not answered in the rebuttal letter (though replied!) 4) Considering this paper comes from a top group for graphene, some statements which I found not accurate make me feel even more uncomfortable: “GOs on the device were chemically reduced with hydrazine vapor (Figure 1a) and the thickness of the rGO piece measured by (atomic force microscopy) AFM was about 0.8 nm, which corresponds to a single layer (Figure 3a).”(>>check the thickness of single layer reduced GO); “strongly revealed that oxygen groups on GO were removed and a network of sp3 C-C bonds formed in the basal plane of rGOs (Figure 3b).” 5) Minor one, what is “frGO”? There is no definition in the paper. Additional Questions: Is this paper in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field?: No If this paper is not in the top 15% of manuscripts in the field: It could be improved to be in the top 15% with further work. Is it appealing to a broad audience?: Yes Does the manuscript give a complete description of the procedures that could be reproduced by others in the field?: No Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: Yes Are the literature references appropriate and correct?: Yes Is the manuscript a comprehensive article/review?: Yes Significance: Moderate Novelty: Moderate Broad interest: High Scholarly presentation: Moderate 本来想抓紧时间修改尽快回复的, 不过还是最终决定把修改好的文章送去英语校正了. 7月23日投出这次修改好的文章,8月14日收到要求修改格式的要求,当天回复,当天接收,成为Just Accepted Article. 2天后galley proof,当天回复,当天Article ASAP. 这就是这次投稿的经历,写的和流水账似的...凑合分享给大家吧 Conclusion 写写自己小小的感受吧 1. 选择一个合适的杂志 根据自己的文章实际情况和平时阅读的文献选择一个合适的杂志,当然也可以选一个稍微高一点的尝试一下. 我第一次试的 Angew Chem就明显不喜欢我这个领域的文章吧,虽然外审了,也没什么具体的审稿意见就拒掉了. 2. 良好的cover letter和abstract 编辑可能在30秒之内就决定文章是否外审,所以一个良好的cover letter能抓住编辑的眼睛. 同时一个好的abstract能清楚的阐述自己的文章的特别之处. 也给编辑留下好的印象. 3. 清晰的思路,流畅的文章 多多阅读这个杂志发表的文章,然后在一个清晰的思路下写自己的文章. 十分建议投稿前进行英语校正!这样能更好的传达自己的思想给审稿人. 4. 细心,耐心的回复 接到审稿意见的时候,仔细的思考,慎重的做出决定. 如果被拒稿,不妨放下2天,等自己心情平静的时候决定是否抗议. 一定要言之有理.让编辑和审稿的人看到自己做出的努力. 其实不是100%被接受的文章都是从一审就一定会被接受的,很多也在模棱两可的交集处. 大胆的抗议+细心耐心的回复可能就会起死回生~ 5. 其他 一个拼命工作的教授,一个和谐的团队,还有那捉摸不定说不清楚的运气...都是成功的重要因素啊!(来小木虫散金币吧!!!^.^) Supporting Information 上周又尝试着投了个文章给ACS Nano, 一周,客气话拒掉. 哈,现在换格式准备改投中. 投文章越来越难啊~~ Good Luck for Your Research ! [ Last edited by lchpy on 2011-9-5 at 21:50 ] 返回小木虫查看更多