一个审稿人给了大修，一个给了修改重投，编辑拒了。有必要修改后重投吗？重投有希望吗？求指教
1.        The geological background of the study area should be provided to the readers, as well as a regional geological map showing the locations of the studied wells.
2.        Some abbreviations, such as Es3, T2 and so on, should have their full connotation when appear at the first time.
3.        The discussion part (section 4) is too short and too simple. Some interpretation in section 2 and section 3 could be moved into section 4.
4.        Detailed figure captions are needed for all the figures.
5.        The written English is poor and needs to be significant improved.
意见2
1. The main scientific problem in this paper is about pore distribution, so I suggest the authors need to write a well paragraph about the scientific problem in "Introduction" section. And organized the latest advances in this field.

2. There are too many descriptions and basic knowledge in the manuscript, which is not necessary, e.g. sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2. These sections need to be reedited in detail.

3. The figures are very poor, and need to be redrawn. Fig.3 also has some Chinese, Fig.7 lacks of depth……

4. The discussion section need to rewritten, and should has a well relationship with the evidences in the above sections. 返回小木虫查看更多