environment earth science 审稿大半年，返回意见，结果是reject andresubmit，不知希望大不，意见如下：
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.

The reviewers' comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided

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 TRACK CHANGES 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.

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1:
There is no novelty in the text. In addition, the quality of the language needs to improve significantly by a native English speaker.


Reviewer #3:
This paper constructed a model to compute hydraulic gradient of PTBS transported in pipeline. A good contribution is that hydraulic gradient can be calculated through 3 variables (pipe diameter, flow velocity and slurry mass fraction) which are all easy to achieve. So, it is certainly topical and of interest to researchers in related areas. However, there are some problems with this paper.

1. The difference between paste-like and paste should be described more clearly. My suggestion is adding a group of slump test to distinguish them macroscopically.

2. Figures in this paper need all to be redrawn more clearly, and the text in the figures exported from software should be translated to English.

3. It is better to mark key data in Fig.2, and describe it in the figure caption.

4. In the chapter of DATA PREPARATION, mass fraction of paste-like varies from 68% to 76%; however, the relative error of hydraulic gradientvalues measured by site experiment and calculation model is 12% when mass fraction is 70%. Is it bigger at 68%? Analyze it!

5.The 'numerical simulation' in Table 5 may mean 'calculated value'？ It appears in various places in the chapter of INDUSTRIAL VALIDATION. Check carefully!

To sum up, the formula derivation process in this paper is reasonable; the research methods are feasible; and the result is reliable. However, for the problems above, it certainly should be revised carefully.


Editor-in-Chief's comments:
In addition to addressing the concerns of the reviewers above, please take care of the following:
1. You must obtain assistance with revisions to the English presentation as there are problems.
2. References:  Please be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.
When citing references by the same author(s) in a sequence, only use the year for the second, third, etc.; for example: Wang et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2011 should be cited as: Wang et al. 2011, 2012.

 返回小木虫查看更多