这是具体审稿意见，感觉都没提出什么具体问题，第二位审稿人主要就是质疑创新性，大家给看看有没有必要argue呢？如果有必要该怎么写呢？第一次遇到这种情况，希望有经验的可以多多指导！谢谢！
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in the *****.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

In this paper, the authors gave some experimental proofs and explained the reasons on the compatibilizing agent A has better interfacial adhesion properties than B between PP and MOSw. The authors investigated the effects of compatibilizing agent on the interfacial adhesion properties of the PP/MOSw composites by SEM, TGA, ATR-FTIR and rheological tests in detailed. Besides these techniques, DSC results maybe provide some useful information on this topic. The paper is well-written and can be accepted for publication in ****.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
The authors studied effects of A and B on interfacial adhesion properties of the PP/MOSw composites. Although the manuscript does not contain significant technical flaws, it lacks the sense of innovation in terms of material preparation, characterization, and discussion. The topic dealing with interfacial interaction of PP composites has been substantially investigated, and the conclusions are known to the community. Mechanism analysis is routine and does not add to existing understanding of similar systems. In this context, the manuscript is more suitable for journals focusing on polymer engineering. 返回小木虫查看更多