今天终于收到了审稿意见，但是由于英文不太好，也由于太过于紧张了吧，现在一脸茫然。还希望各位帮我分析一下该如何回答。审稿意见如下：
Comments from the editors and reviewers:
-Reviewer 1
  -
Strengths:
The problem shown in the manuscript is interesting and well defined. The solving method may be interesting for other researchers. The application of results may lead to increase heat transfer capabilities which is within the scope of the Journal. The CFD simulation is compared with some experimental results. Most of the model parameters are explained.
Weaknesses:
The main interest for readers would be the simulation method which is described, but some more details could be given such as mesh details (the picture is informative, but number of cells, cell and shape in all regions could be given explicitly).
The comparison with the experiment is shown only for offset angle, is it possible to address also at least qualitatively the thickness of the layer? Maybe for one case only but some remarks could be important for other researchers.
The minimal flow for sur wetting could be simulated using this method?
There is a small mistyped number in Fig 3b experiment shall be 200 instead of 100.

-Reviewer 2

  - Dear Author,

This is well-written article that does identify an important gap in xxxx. There has been a few researches on xxxx reported in open literature. However, the article would be significantly improved with the addition of more review of the xxxx. This is because the review of the literature is not thorough for study of xxxx; because the author only referred to two articles which were published in 2014 and 2007, which has a big gap almost 10 years.

The author did not critically review xxxx in the Introduction. This helps to show that this parameter is important to characterize xxxx.

The details of my comments and suggestions are attached with this reviewer comments. 返回小木虫查看更多