投了一篇SCI，审稿人建议大修，结果编辑直接拒了，但是鼓励重投，我按照审稿意见大修后重投了，又给了原来那个审稿人，审稿人的意见是这样的：
Reviewer #1: The paper deals with an interesting subject, which is the optimization of the  calibration interval of an Automatic Test Equipment. However, the writing style has to be improved and some technical aspects have to be clarified in order to make the paper easy to be understood. Also some figures have to be improved.
A paper with the same title was revised in the past  and the recommendation was "Major Revision". Almost all of the previous comments have been addressed.
编辑的意见是这样的：
The reviewer has made substantial comments and these should be acted upon.  This paper has proposed an approach for evaluating the optimal calibration interval of an ATE where an on-station calibration strategy of ATE is analyzed on the basis of metrology chain.
The authors suggest that the results demonstrate that compared with the cannikin principle and criteria of the highest rank of metrology train principle - thereby their approach can make better use of the test resources and save more time. Overall a solid piece of work that could be published if the reviewer's comments are dealt with in a satisfactory way.
我现在的疑问是审稿人说the writing style has to be improved and some technical aspects have to be clarified in order to make the paper easy to be understood. Also some figures have to be improved.但是并没有具体指出改哪些，这种情况要怎么改呢？ 返回小木虫查看更多