论文小修之后又变成了under review，好焦急的说

　　论文小修之后又变成了under review，好焦急的说。这是一审时，审稿人的意见，

Ref.:Ms. No. EPJP-D-14-00013
A Study on Oscillating Second Kind Boundary Condition for Pennes Equation Considering Thermal Relaxation.
The European Physical Journal - Plus

Dear Dr. zhu,

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.

The reviewers comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link.

When revising your work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.

Your revision is due by 01-04-2014.

To submit a revision, go to

Yours sincerely

Paolo Biscari
Associate Editor
The European Physical Journal - Plus

Reviewers comments:

Reviewer #1: In their paper, authors study the effects of the thermal relaxation, the blood perfusion and the oscillating of ambient heat flux on the living tissue temperature through a 1D Cattaneo-Vernott (CV) model for Pennes bioheat transfer equation under oscillating second kind boundary condition. They showed that the tissue temperature oscillates in the same period with the ambient heat flow. Investigating the of blood perfusion on the temperature, they obtained, in a special case, that the mean value of excess temperature will reach a steady-state. They have also discussed the effect of relaxation time τ_{q} on the steady-state temperature.
The theme discussed in the manuscript is interesting althought the author have limited themselves in the linear case of CV model. The manuscript can then be published in the EPJ-Plus after the authors gave appropriate answers to the below critics.
1. What is the mean of the abbreviation CV which appears in the abstract (it probably stands for Cattaneo and Vernott)?
2. Second line of page 2, authors must correct the world Penes which probably stands for Pennes.
3. In the second line after Eq (2), it should be b etter to write: τ_{q} ranges from 10⁻sup1;⁴ to 10⁻⁸ s.
4. May the authors explain why they stat that the CV model of bioheat transfer is very important (see end of page 2)?
5. May the authors accurately explain why the insertion of Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) gives Eq. (3)?
6. I cannot see why after multiplying both sides of Eq. (4) by k, authors have obtained Eq. (10)! Eq. (10) is valid only when k is constant.
7. Θ introduced after Eq. (12) is not defined

3.4日通知小修，16日（周日）晚我将修改稿返回，17日我的又变成了under review,好焦急的说。


修了两次，已经accepted了！从去年12.28日到今年4.15日文章接收，历时3个月零19天，刨除人元旦休息，共历时3个月零12天。

[ Last edited by zwp781229 on 2014-4-18 at 15:51 ]
===有问必答===


6楼2014-03-20 14:35:53
----
你确定7个问题还是小修么？祝福楼主哈哈，俺也在焦急的等待结果。
----

所谓七个问题连拼写错误Pennes写成了Penes，写法习惯问题“ranges form 10^-8 to 10^-14s”改成"ranges from 10^-14 to 10^-8s"等都有；还有一个模型，文中解释了，但摘要中出现时没解释都提出来了。还有一处是进行拉普拉斯变换的时候，忘了说\Theta就是\theta的像了。。。还有一处忘了写前提条件传热系数k是个了。。。