审稿意见回来了，请虫友们帮们分析一下审稿意见
Interesting paper, important for heat engineering.
Suggestion – try to join Figures 4 and 5, Figures 6 and 7, Figures 8 and 9 if possible; improve quality of this figures.
Figures 1 and 2 – good quality and give idea of experiment for reader.
Literature is up to date (14 papers published after the year 2010).
Lack of explanation of all variables in formula number 2.
Lack of statistical analyses of results.
Lack of information about efficiency of proposed method in case of shape changes of the pipe during exploitation.
Generally good English but check by native speaker or teacher would be valuable, eg. in Conclusions.
返回小木虫查看更多
今日热帖
京公网安备 11010802022153号
总体评价算高的 比较客观 有好的和不足的方面 好好改改 很有戏
提前恭喜你了。
都是小错误，小修的吧，很容易改。revised and resubmited很快就接受了
，
审稿意见正面，比较简单，好好修改下，接收希望很大。
谢谢，其实特别想请教的是关于 statistical analyses of results. 和check by native speaker or teacher would be valuable, eg. in Conclusions.这两个点，我们实验数据比较简单，变化趋势在图中一目了然，就在结论中简单描述了一下变化趋势，现在让加统计分析不知从何下手。英语是自己写的，然后让同学帮忙修改的，返回修改意见以后又重新修改了一小部分，这样会不会让人感觉我修改的不认真呀
，