论文初审给的大修,再审被拒了,前后耗时接近5个月。一审两个审稿意见,二审只有第一个审稿人的意见。下面是major revision后第一个审稿人的意见。
The authors answered that they show the electrodes in Fig 1. I don't see these electrodes.
The authors use for axes both designations r, teta z and 3,1,2 . It is very inconvenient. As a consequence of Eg.(4) and Eg.(5) contain errors. I recomended use only r,teta and z.
The boundary condition pU(r)=beta mU is not really.
These conditions may be only for structur with parallel orientation of layers. But at this case we have series connection magnetostrictive-piezoelectric layers.
The material parameters for numerical calculations are not cylindrical coordinates. There are values in Cartesian coordinates.
I have already noted that the resonance in Fig 2 can not be associated with radial oscillations. Equation (43) does not appear either from any previous analysis.
第一条,我在图里补了测量电压的示意图,不就表明了电极的位置吗?
第二条,在张量表达式下,柱坐标下的关系式,系数是可以用1,2,3做下标的,在很多文献里都有啊。
第三条,这个边界条件有问题,为什么第一次审稿不提出来?而且类似情况文献里也有啊。
第四条,更加没有道理了,在很多很多类似工作里,材料参数在柱坐标下都有s11,d31这种表示方法的。
第五条,我已经反复表明这个共振峰是跟径向振动有关的,而且给出了经验公式(43)。但他说这个公式不存在,很多文献里都有啊!!
整个这个审稿意见里还有一些拼写,语法错误。
这样的审稿意见可以申诉吗? |