24 2554

0203
--------------------------------------------- : .



KPI

(Review Paper)

2-3 Manuscript

(Editor)
Reject 2-3
Reviewer ()
3-5 1 Reviewers
4 1) (Reject) 2) (Accept) 3)
(Minor Revision) 4) (Major Revision)
2-3

Editor
2
Theme Journal
Editor Editor
Editor Impact
Factor Editor Reviewers

Reviewers
Reviewers Reviewers
Editor Reviewers Area
Reviewers
edit paper

1. ()
2.
(Introduction)

3. Simulation
(Methodogy)
4. (Discussion & Conclusion)
5. (Abstract)
6.
Recommendation Reviewers
1. Accept
2. Major Revision
2

3. Minor Revision

4. Reject
5. Reject & Resubmit

3 Paper


Application

Journal

Journal
Simulation
J

(Theme) Journal
Manuscript Full Paper, Short Communication Letters,
Review Articles
Readership paper

3

 ISI

Guide for Authors

Guide for Authors
Manuscript () PDF.
Good Manuscript







3
Referee Editor
Title Title

Title

Corresponding Author
(Corresponding Author)

1 First Author) (
)
Abstract
Reviewer
main text
A4 1-2 4
Objective Methodology
5

 700

Keywords
Keywords
Keywords Guide for Authors Keywords
Keywords Search Paper

Introduction
o Introduction

Background
6


1-4
Create Research Space Review

paper



Introduction

paper

pattern
Introduction Create Research Space
() paper pattern

 Methods
Simulation
methods keywords


Heading

methods :


Results


main Idea



Sigma Plot
Origin Excel


Journal

Table 2. Pyrolysis kinetic parameters and reaction contribution estimated for each
DTG peak at various heating rates
Peak
First

Second

Third

Heating rate
(, Kmin-1)
5
10
15
20
Average
STD Dev
5
10
15
20
Average
STD Dev
5
10
15
20
Average
STD Dev

Reaction
order (n)
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0

Activation energy
(E, kJmol-1)
214.15
182.37
157.62
182.51
190.91
23.16
109.58
100.28
94.97
132.85
109.42
16.75
139.97
127.93
129.15
147.14
136.05
9.16

Pre-exponential
factor (lnA, min-1)
46.34
39.11
33.56
38.60
39.40
5.26
20.68
19.08
18.33
25.72
20.95
3.33
21.57
19.74
20.11
23.20
21.16
1.58

Reaction
contribution (m)
0.443
0.449
0.392
0.525
0.452
0.055
0.272
0.274
0.354
0.194
0.274
0.065
0.285
0.277
0.254
0.281
0.274
0.014

Discussion

10

11

12

13

Conclusion
Impact 1-2
Conclusion Abstract Conclusion
Abstract

Acknowledgement

14

 References

Reader

Appendix ()

Supplementary Materials
Animation Video Clip
Language Focus

Ethical issues


Draft

Submission
log in
reviewer 3 5 e-mail Highlight
1 Cover Letter
Corresponding Author

15



- Reasons for Early Rejection

- Rejection
Dear Dr. Siripon Anantawaraskul:
Your manuscript entitled Simulation of Chain Conformation and Molecular
Characteristics of Uniform Star Polymers in a Dilute Solution using Pivot Algorithm
cjps20080073 has been reviewed by referees.
According to the negative opinion of the referees I regret that we cannot accept this
manuscript for publication in the Chinese Journal of Polymer Science.
Please find the Comments of referees by clicking <Author status inquiry>.
Thank you again for selecting CJPS as a publishing medium of your papers. Welcome
you and your colleagues to submit your papers in the future.
Sincerely yours,
Mao Xu, Professor
Associate Editor-in chief

16

- Resubmission

17

Follow Any Sound

In page 8 (1st line), In further validate --> In further validating

Change as suggested.
- generally: molar masses should be written with the units (g/mol or kg/mol)
in tables, figures etc.
Changed as suggested in Table 1 and 7 and Figure 7 and 8.

- table 2: is the number of decimals in columns 2 7 appropriate?

Changed as suggested. The number is rounded up to two decimal points.

- table 6 and 7: mol %, not mole %

Changed as suggested in Table 6 and 7.
- Fig. 6 a) and b): the symbols of the graphs cannot be distinguished. Maybe one can
reduce the number of data points as well.
Changed as suggested.

- In page 10, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line, it is defined r as the kinetic chain length, information
useless for equation 10 and 11
The sentence r is the kinetic chain length is removed as suggested.

In page 8 (1st line), In further validate --> In further validating

Change as suggested.
- generally: molar masses should be written with the units (g/mol or kg/mol)
in tables, figures etc.
Changed as suggested in Table 1 and 7 and Figure 7 and 8.

- table 2: is the number of decimals in columns 2 7 appropriate?

Changed as suggested. The number is rounded up to two decimal points.
- table 6 and 7: mol %, not mole %
Changed as suggested in Table 6 and 7.
- Fig. 6 a) and b): the symbols of the graphs cannot be distinguished. Maybe one can
reduce the number of data points as well.
Changed as suggested.

- In page 10, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line, it is defined r as the kinetic chain length, information
useless for equation 10 and 11
The sentence r is the kinetic chain length is removed as suggested.

Address Reviewers Concerns Reviewer

- Fig. 10: there are too many graphs in one figure. For clarity it would be better to leave
graphs out which are very close together.
We understand the reviewers concern that the plots are overlapping. However, it seems
important to illustrate all comonomer types in this Figure to show the overall tendency.
Therefore, we rescaled the horizontal axis to help reader observe this tendency clearly.

- The polymer concentration is fixed 0.1 mg/mL. Although it is always recommended to work
with diluted solutions, does it influence the crystaf profile? If this is the case, could it have
different importance depending on the solubility of the polymer in TCB?
Typically, the polymer concentration range between 0.1 and 1 mg/mL is used to ensure a dilute
solution while maintaining reasonable signal-to-noise ratios in the infrared detector (see Soares
et al., Journal of Polymer Science: Part B: Polymer Physics, Vol. 43, 15571570 (2005)).
It has been showed experimentally in our previous publication that the polymer concentration
has negligible effect on Crystaf profile (see Anantawarasakul et al., Journal of Polymer Science:
Part B: Polymer Physics, Vol. 41, 17621778 (2003)).

18

Be Ready to Do More Works

4.
You mentioned the dependency test of the lattice size and the number of program running in
page 6. The dependency test results should be shown in this paper. For instance, the reason why you
chose 800 x 800 unit cell size. This issue is basic topic but very useful data for the readers.
The dependency test results on the number of runs and lattice size are added in Figure 4 and 5. It was
found that the effect of lattice size become negligible when the lattice size is larger than 600x600;
therefore, we choose the lattice size of 800x 800. Also, the effect of the number of run become
negligible when the number of runs is more then 1,000 runs; therefore, we choose the number of run
equal to 5,000 run for this work.

Be Ready to Defense Your Works

Otherwise, the mathematical model presented in the manuscript is merely a fitting
exercise and one could question if another empirical model with 4 or even fewer fitting
parameters could have produced similar results.
We believe that our model is justified theoretically and not just fitting exercise.
The major evident is that all parameters are within the range reported earlier in the
literatures and follow the theoretically expected trend. This is something one could not be
obtained from arbitrary empirical model.

It would good to comment on the applicability for blends of metallocene PE with
different comonomer content. Or better, to include model prediction and experimental
data for such a blend
We are still investigating this complex topic of polyethylene blends together with
the analysis of Z-N PE in details. We plan to report this complex topic in a future
publication using the approach outlined in the last paragraph of results and discussion.

19


Excellent approach. I enjoyed reviewing it.

The manuscript by Anantawaraskul et al presents a mathematical model of the

CRYSTAF profile of ethylene based copolymers, resting on the assumption that
CRYSTAF fractionate molecules according to their longest ethylene sequence (LES).
This is not a new concept, however the authors include in the present model effects that
have been previously ignored, such as the role of the cooling rate, which is of paramount
experimental importance.
The manuscript is concise, of good quality, and clearly presented. The assumptions are
well-stated, including the fact that co-crystallization is ignored, which limits the
application to single-site (metallocene) catalyzed polymers.
It is this reviewers opinion that the manuscript is worthy of publication in the Journal of
Polymer Science Part B: Polymer Physics

1.
2.
3. Journal
4. Manuscript
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..

5 2554
20