专业最顶级的几种杂志之一吧。
这次审稿了半年，终于有意见了。之前投过一次，以没有试验验证为由拒了。隔了三个月，加上试验再投，直接被当做修改稿发给原来的一个审稿人审稿。
以下是审稿后回信所有内容。

大家帮忙看看，这个希望大不大。虽然是给的大修，除了语言和格式问题，其他几乎没有提问题。该怎么改最好。谢谢大家了，没有金币，求好心人。
dear ***：
Your revised manuscript, "***", which you submitted to “***”  for a possible publication as an original paper has been reviewed by the same reviewer who was involved in the first review stage and by the associate editor.

Based on the advice received, your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in the present form and need be further revised and significantly improved as pointed out in the comments below.

There is in particular the need to make the paper better readable, in order to be able to accept it for publication. As already requested in the first review stage, it is mandatory to have the manuscript carefully edited for English before resubmission.

Our suggestion is that you take good care of the comments below, reorganize-improve the writing of your manuscript and have it edited for English. Please give clear evidence that this has been done by attaching to your submission the certificate by the English editing service provider.

In summary, when preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the comments which are attached, and submit a list of responses to the comments.  Your list of responses should be uploaded as a file in addition to your revised manuscript.

In order to submit your revised manuscript electronically, please access the following web site:

     ************

Your username is: ********
Your password is: ********

Please click "Author Login" to submit your revision.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

***
********************


COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

General Assessment:
Is the content of the paper within the scope of the journal?  Yes
Is the title appropriate?  Yes
Does the paper make an original contribution to rock mechanics and rock engineering?  Yes
Does the paper consider findings from other investigations?  Yes
Could the paper be shortened?  Yes (please do so!)
Is the writing style appropriate?  No
Is the English editing appropriate?  No
Is the quality of figures appropriate? Yes
Are the references adequate and all of them necessary? Yes
Is the structure of the paper appropriate?  Yes/No
Does the abstract describe the work performed and the conclusions drawn?  Yes

Associate Editor:
According to the reviewer's comments and my checking, the article needs major revisions. The English writing must be improved. In addition, the manuscript is a little long with 35 pages of text, 15 pictures and 5 tables. I suggest authors to reduce the number of figures. Some pictures could be put into one, such as Figs.5 and 6, Figs. 7 and 8. Figs. 9 to 12, i.e. the schematic views of the multiscale characteristic and the microscopic bond shear failure face of two rocks, could also be simplified.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript reports analytical and experimental studies on the shear characteristics of rock joints filled with cement grout. Technically, the paper is worth to be published. However, the language in the current version is still unacceptable. Many sentences are unreadable. For example, Page 4 Line 11 "at least dozens of", Page 4 Line 22 "while when less than", Page 5 Line 1 "strength decrease", Page 5 Line 8 "tree-dimensional", Page 7 Line 1 "microstructure ranging from nanoscale to millimeter scale", etc. This manuscript needs a reliable and professional English editing before it can be accepted for publication.
Additionally, in Figure 5, "concaves", one letter "s" is in different color. In Figure 6, "concaves" in yellow color is not easily visible. 返回小木虫查看更多