本虫写了一篇论文，目前二审修改，求大神指点。

里面有用XRD测岩石矿物组分，用来对比某试剂处理前后的岩石矿物成分变化问题。我们的结论是测出来有明显的效果。
文中有放实验处理前后的矿物组分百分比表格，也放了一张图谱上去，实验处理前后某几种矿物成分差别10%左右。

但是有个审稿人说XRD测矿物组分是半定量测试，这个实验原理就决定了测不准；还说这个XRD图谱看起来也没啥变化。意思是这个结论和方法都站不住脚跟。
审稿人意见原话如下：
*I don’t see any significance of Table 2. The XRD experiment is viewed as “semi-quantitatively” describing the mineralogical composition of a sample at best. The variations (virtually essential with the method itself) in the individual mineral constituent are dependent on many laboratory or equipment factors and very unlikely from the effect of XXXX（我们用的处理试剂）.

*Similarly, I don’t see any changes in mineral constituents between the untreated and XXXX-treated shale samples in Figure 5. The two curves are more or less the same. The red curve is parallel aligned relative to the black one, meaning they are almost the same. Their height difference is more likely from background noise. The authors should make more references to the theory and application of XRD technology.


而且其他论文里面都讲了跟我这类似的结论，我加的参考文献里面也有；其他人这么说（包括国内外的论文，和国内的硕士论文）都可以，结果遇到个这么认死理的审稿人。主编的意见是相信这位专家，还说这位专家是岩石矿物评价方面的行家，最终给最后次机会修改答复。

我想的是弱化这个结论，措辞方面修改一下，表格留着，图删掉；就说可能是这种试剂处理引起了矿物的变化；最后再把这个不足也写进结论和展望里面提出可以对这个反面进行详细的研究；同时加点其他人的文献引证一下。

不知道各位大神怎么看？盼回复。 返回小木虫查看更多