MSE-A 审稿意见返回，reject and resubmit，审稿人觉得工作不系统且没新意，不知道是否有必要修改，求助大神们帮忙分析一下，如下是编辑和审稿人的意见

I am sorry to inform you that I must reject your paper, and If you feel that the paper can be revised to satisfy the criticisms of the reviewer, I will consider the revised version.  

Reviewer #1: The work characterizes the evolution of crystallographic texture and twin density during a single isothermal anneal.  The data could be of interest and use to the community, however the reviewer does not find the work to be particularly systematic or novel such that it will have much impact on the field.  For example, it would be useful to know to what extent the observed results extend to other temperatures, processing conditions, etc.  The results are more akin to a short report or research update than a detailed scientific manuscript.  The results were discussed in the context of several existing models.  Rohrer et al (Acta 2015) recently used x-ray tomography to demonstrate the mechanism for annealing twin formation proposed by Fisher (JAP 1951).  It would be interesting to consider how the observed texture evolution would affect this model, given what is known about grain boundary energies as a function of misorientation in Ni.  There are a lot of grammatical errors throughout the paper.

NOTE: The reviewer(s) attachments can also be accessed from your author main menu. To access these comments, please go to the folder entitled "Submission Needing Revision" and click on 'View Reviewer Attachments' (if present). 返回小木虫查看更多