SCI审稿结果大修，希望虫友能帮忙分析下，审稿人是不是对文章的实验结果还是比较认可的，主要问题是自己各方面的语言表达写得不够好？感激不尽！
以下是审稿人的回复，我粘贴些简单明了的内容，省略的回复是关于实验的一些问题，主要还是关于审稿人对我所表述的不太看得明白。
Reviewer: 1
However, such blending modification strategy using PVDF-g-PEGMA copolymers had been proposed 15 years ago, and large amounts of related studies had been done in the past decades. By contrast, the novelty and significance of the current manuscript is inadequate. Some detailed suggestions/questions were as follows:
(1)        The Introduction described at too much length the significance of the previous research by the authors. But the novelty of the current study was barely emphasized. It is suggested to recompose the Introduction section to highlight the meaning of the current research.
(2)        It is suggested to rewrite the Abstract. The expression in some sentences (e.g., from Line 55 on Page 1 to Line 8 on Page 2) is too misty to understand.
(3)        It is suggested to unite the writing style of the units throughout the paper. e.g., mg/L, /s, /cm; or mg L-1, s-1, cm-1.
(5)        The unit for flux is better to be written as L m-2 h-1.

Reviewer: 2
The manuscript by Shuai Wang et al. seems to be interesting and presents some important findings. However, I cannot fully assess the novelty of this manuscript considering the poorly organized presentation and badly written language. I suggest the author to use the editing service provided by some publishing house before resubmitting the manuscript. Although we did not reject a paper because of the language, this manuscript did not present their experiment and results in an understandable way.
1.        The title is too long and did not provide the reader any useful information.
4.        Figures like Figure 4 and 7 are poorly designed.
5.        Ref 14,16, missing information. Ref 35, the journal name is in abbreviation while the others are in full. 返回小木虫查看更多