投稿后初审和修改稿前后两次审稿意见反差巨大，求分析原因。
第一次意见：
Reviewer #1: There are quite some grammatical issues, including:
这里是6个语法问题。
Technical questions are:
1. Experimental section: 此处只要补充一些实验说明。
2. 此处也是一个补充实验说明的问题。
3. P8: What exactly is the resolution in V/mm? And how much is the resultant inaccuracy ?
4. Fig 5 and 8: beta%? beta in percentage or beta?
5. Fig 9 and Fig8(f): x-axis better be log scale than linear scale
6. P10: Be careful of "percentage" where it might have been "ratio". They mean similar things
but readers are likely to confused with the actual numbers.
7. Fig 9(a): what is SI? It seems to be D in page 11. Is 0.2% within error range?
根据审稿意见，我们进行了很认真的修改，然后得到第二次意见：
The authors did extensive research on the -----------. However, the goal of the research is fuzzy, the study non-innovative, and the study limited to essentially replotting the data. The paper shed little light on the fatigue behavior, other than reporting the data. Thus, I expect readers from academia or industry to benefit little from the current version in terms of understanding the physics behind fatigue.
唉，怎么会是这样的意见，如果是这样的意见，为什么一开始不说？这样的剧情反转有点厉害，实在不知道什么原因。
求大神分析可能的原因.
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
现在好的期刊基本上都是同行大牛审稿，他们很谨慎，一般第一轮很少拒稿（确实太烂了除外），会给大修，然后看你修改的效果。第一轮审稿人不一定会特别深入进去的看，特别是好多非英语母语的人投稿，英语不行很难懂。往往是在第二轮会发现更多的问题，这很常见。楼主应该庆幸审稿人给的很犀利的意见，对论文很有帮助。这些也是我导师和我说的，给你分享下。
，
祝福
楼上正解，其实，还有就是你第一次投稿审稿人是A和B,但是第二次可能是C和D
估计审稿人是很不看好楼主文章中的研究工作，因此才会有这个审稿结果。