投了一篇文章到    Materials

五天，三个审稿人的一件就回来了， 速度很快，但是审稿人的意见非常不统一

审稿人1：
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper “Fabrication, structural characterization and uniaxial tensile properties of novel Sintered multi-layer wire mesh porous plates” by Liuyang Duan, Zhaoyao Zhou, Bibo Yao describes the fabrication of technologically important materials in an innovative way. All procedures are described in detail. The resulting products are characterized by e.g. SEM. Furthermore, the resulting products were tested in respect to stress as function of porosities and different temperatures. The fracture morphology was evaluated by SEM.

而且对文章的五项评价都是优

审稿人2：
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There are some comments to be addressed. Figure 1, add a scale to all parts of this figure. Figure 4, add a scale. Figure 5, give error bars on all data pints. Table 1, check significant figures. Figure 6 insets, give a scale. Figure 8, where does the 1330oC material fail?

这里都是一些格式问题

审稿人3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study looked at the fabrication and characterization of sintered multilayer wire mesh porous plates. The topic is sound however the article is poorly written and contains several flaws. Below are some comments on the affiliation and the abstract sections.



Affiliations: Authors should provide the institute details such as address, city, postal code, country, etc.

Abstract: The sentence structure in the abstract is weak and does not represent the article. In other words the abstract should be structured to tell the reader the importance of the study, what was done to prove the hypothesis, what results were collected, and any insights on flaws or recommendations for future work. Currently, it is hard to follow the content of the first and most important part of the article. Below are some comments on how to improve it:

- Provide an opening sentence talking about the importance of this topic and the overall objective of the study.

- The sentence in lines 18-22 is long and should not be in the abstract section.

- Sentences in lines 24-27: these changes happened as a result of what? authors should clarify and make it easier to understand.

- Lines 22-24: why do you have this sentence in the abstract "The failure 22 mechanisms of the WMPPs are wire stretching, metallurgical joint points breaking and wire/pore 23 structure loosing."??



Skimming through the article and considering the above mentioned flaws, I recommend rejection of this article. I also suggest that the authors amend it rigorously before submitting it for review.
我觉得这个审稿人在搞我，提出几个无关痛痒的问题，没有提出文章的致命缺陷就建议拒搞

编辑给我的是major revirion，十天内修改提交。昨天刚收到的邮件，具体提出的问题已经修改的差不多了。。
文章内部关于试验和结论的地方没有一个审稿人给意见，我还需要再修改吗？
第三位审稿人说我是 poor written，具体是我语言 poor  还是文章的 结构、逻辑、格式 poor 他完全没说
请专业人士给点指点，小弟万谢！！！@Monash2011 返回小木虫查看更多