Dear Mr. Sun:

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received.  You will see that they are advising against publication of your work; however, are encouraging you to resubmit the manuscript with extensive revisions.

If you choose to revise your original research, you must make all the necessary modifications before resubmitting to Environmental Earth Sciences for further evaluation.

Please revise your original manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer.  Please provide a revised manuscript with all changes clearly marked (e.g. in red, but not in tracked version) so that the reviewer can easily assess your revised work. When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the reviewer's comments.  To expedite the review of your revised manuscript, please be specific and direct.  

Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center and please delete the old versions of your files.  

Please make sure to submit your editable source files (i. e. Word, TeX).

To facilitate timely publication, your revised paper should be uploaded swiftly.  If it is not possible for you to submit your revised manuscript in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your revised version as a new submission.  

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your manuscript.

Best regards,
Gunter Doerhoefer, Dr.
Editor-in-Chief
Environmental Earth Sciences

------------------------------------------

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: 1. Please provide measured data (P-wave velocities before and after heating, mass before and after heating) not just change rates.
2. Please explain for how many samples you actually show data. You describe measuring 76 samples but seem to show only data for 1 sample.
3. Please include error bars and error analysis, explain variations in data between different samples
4. Please include SEM images for highest temperatures (up to 900 deg C) or explain why these were not acquired. These would be most interesting for the reader since you claim they show the most change / damage
5. Language needs a significant improvement. I suggest specific changes in the attached Word document. Consult with a native English speaker if possible. It was often not clear to me what you were trying to say (e.g. engineering rock mass, crystal water, partial mineral water, dense holes, mickle, broken liner, partial particles).
6. Please be consistent with tenses
7. Please make Figure captions more descriptive - the reader should be able to understand the figure without reading the text
8. Please indicate when speculating - you often describe processes in the sample which can not be observed in experimental data as if they were facts and not just one possible interpretation. Please explain what interpretations are based on.
9. Your conclusion section lacks a clear interpretation of your experimental results. You have have acquired an impressive amount of experimental data - make sure to draw valid conclusions. Do not just describe observations; add indications; connect with your motivation in the introduction section.
10. Please explain the indications of your research for other sandstones or other rock types. Are these expected to behave similar, .e.g damage threshold temperature, exponential increase in damage with temperature or is this behavior specific for your samples?


There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the 'View Attachments' link in the Action column.

******** 返回小木虫查看更多