两篇文章研究不同的问题(1个碳循环，1个水循环)，得到的其中一个Reviewer的意见几乎一致：

“XXXX”代表的是文章的标题或主题关键词之类的，其他没有任何改动。

论文1：
This research have presented XXXX. In my opinion, even if lots of information for the goal of XXXX has been investigated, the current version of this manuscripts cannot be recommended for publication as it is.

I perceived that although the development of XXXX may be unique and specific, this research did not derive the innovative conclusions. And, the technical methods had been already employed by the many similar works previously. Accordingly, I have to inform that the manuscripts should be declined.

说明：Top期刊，5个审稿人，其余4个都给予了非常好的评价，最后大修完之后，隔1天就接受了。目前已经见刊发表。

论文2：
This research have presented XXXX. In my opinion, even if lots of information for the goal of XXXX has been investigated, the current version of this manuscripts cannot be recommended for publication as it is.

I perceived that although the application of XXXX may be unique and specific, this research did not derive the innovative conclusions. And, the technical methods had been already employed by the many similar works previously. Many figures need high resolutions printings. Accordingly, I have to inform that the manuscripts should be declined.

说明：3区期刊, IF: 2.64, 今天刚收到的审稿意见。只有2个审稿人，第2个给予了非常积极正面的评价，提了几个小问题，一天就能修改完，最后主编给的是大修。主编是德国的，谷歌学术搜了一下，有1000多篇相关文献。


我的问题：这种情况多见吗？我该怎么处理？请大家各抒己见，谢谢大家！ 返回小木虫查看更多