第一次投稿，审稿意见只有两个审稿人的，但是编号从#1直接到#4，不会是编辑忘记复制#2和#3的了吧，大家有遇到过这种情况吗？

Reviewer #1: The authors systematically studied the constitutive modeling for the mechanical response of porous PDLLA/nano-HA under different stress conditions, using various fundamental compressible hyper-elastic constitutive models. The manuscript was well organized, and thus can be considered for publication in JMBBM after minor revision.
Page 9: The sentence-"When the nominal strain of PDLLA/nano-HA with 10 wt. % and 37 wt. % nano-HA reach -0.45 and -0.4, respectively " is incomplete. Please re-write it.

Reviewer #4: 1.Actually I rarely read this category of article,but I am interested in the title and theme of this article,and I have learn a lot. The contents of this article is detailed and novel , the spelling and grammar is correct, and the emphasis is distinct, so it seem quite meets the criterion of Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials.
2.Is there any references to explain the difference between these four scaffold materials? It is better to list some.
3.The framework need to improve. Is essential to write the discuss part in this article, or analyze the advantage and the shortcoming of this article?
4.The conclusion is authority and distinct.
5.Although I don't understand all the method of this article, the formulas and the graphs are rather good! 返回小木虫查看更多