本人投稿一篇SCI，今天收到一审邮件，让我大修，有两个审稿人。一个审稿人给了7条意见，

Major:
1. But in Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.7, the 。。。 The 。。。。are no longer under unloading conditions, so the data provided are not relevant to the topic of this paper.
2.It is subjected to the diameter of a small hole in the suction valve and other parameters such as rotation speed. But in Fig.3, Fig.4 and Fig.7, there are no any indications about the specific value of the suction pressure.
3.Almost all the conclusions of this paper can be found in a textbook. The important issues with unloading conditions are not addressed such as 。。。。。, etc.

Minor:
1.In Table 2, the clearance at the outlet end should be 0.03mm, and at the inlet end should be 0.4mm.
2.In Fig.2, the flow meter 6 between oil separator 8 and compressor 3 can measure the two phase flow of oil and air?
3.In Fig.1, the air in the separator 3 is vented to atmosphere through valve7? How about the oil in the air?
4.In Highlights, "The shaft power is more at higher rotation speed and lower discharge pressure" should be at higher discharge pressure.
另一个没有给出具体意见
The paper repeated the model what has already been published, for example in 。。。。  and other papers of the same authors. Even modelling of the ******* was presented. The paper may be published after complete rewriting in which the authors will explain what is new in their paper and add more material to justify the paper publication.
    请问我该如何回复第二位审稿人的意见，还有改完之后论文有没有可能被录,
    请各位同学提供宝贵意见，谢谢！ 返回小木虫查看更多