Reviewer #1: The design of XXX is very interesting and the study is comprehensive. The general topic of the current manuscript is of interest for readers of XXX（期刊名）.
I would suggest the authors consider the follows carefully beore this manuscript might be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: Although I think the results are correct, I cannot recommend its publication in XXX（期刊名） after considering following points:
1.Similar results in this paper have already been published in 某期刊 and in 某期刊
2.原理也不新

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents some interesting simulation results on a design of XXX, in which different kinds of resonance modes can be obtained. The conclusion is well supported by the results. Therefore, I recommend for acceptance after the authors address the following comments.

审稿经历了2个阶段，1和2两个审稿人意见返回编辑部的时候，状态变成了reviews completed，又过了几天，reviews completed状态没变但是时间变了一次，后来知道应该是找了第三个审稿人裁判，最终结果是minor revision。
从语句中我感觉审稿人1和3应该是给的minor revision，审稿人2给的是reject。
请问下，在这种情况，审稿人2的意见我是否要回复？ 返回小木虫查看更多