直接邮件问吧

万幸，投稿5个月左右返回一审意见，郑院士给了一次宝贵的修改机会，大家帮忙分析一下审稿意见，给些修改建议吧


Comments from the editors and reviewers:
-Reviewer 1
The manuscript addresses the issue of analytically predicting the effective thermal conductivity (ETC) of low porosity granular geomaterials. Haigh’s (2012) model for predicting the ETC based on spherical particle embedded in unit cylindrical cell is extended for lower void ratio (e<0.5) has been developed. The work sounds original and reads well. Clarification on electrical analogy for thermal conductivity is explained very well. The pictorial representation of thermal unit cell and derivation of the formulas are noteworthy. However, following points needs to be clarified before considered for publication.
1.        For quasi-hemispherical particle enclosed in the cylindrical cell, the radius of the inscribed spherical particles are allowed to grow till sqrt(2R). This assumption control the alpha and beta controlling parameters. Parameter alpha control the porosity (phi) of the system. A proper explanation is required based on physical or geometrial sense for justification of this assumption.
2.        The curvature of the menisci holding the water at the particle contact is ignored. This plays a significant role in ETC computation. This should be mentioned in the assumption.
3.        Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) provides better justification for change in ETC of geomaterials which is not limited to sand type materials only. A metion of this similarity is provide in the review of Dong et al. Geotech. and Geolog.Eng. 33, 202-221,(2015).  Likos has developed an analytical expression considering this effect. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 33, 179–192. A mention of this work is relevant for this manuscript.
4.        Some of the references regarding the numerical thermal conductivity evaluation are relatively old and need to be updated, I suggested recent relevant references by Lee et. al  Geothermics 67 76-85 (2017).

-Reviewer 2

In this research, a cylindrical unit cell model for predicting the effective thermal conductivity of two-phase or three-phase low porosity granular geomaterials is proposed. As understood by the reviewer, the model is simple geometry discretization of the unit particle into three-phase and assigning an initial thermal conductivity for each phase to fit the experimental data given in the last section of the paper. So, there is not that much difference between this model and fitting curve models exist in the literature (Chen 2008, Lu et al 2007). The general standard is far below what is expected for this journal. The main points will be:
1. While talking about three-phase heat transfer, considering only the conduction heat transfer is not valid.
2. Why consider only low porosity, in the literature, exists also models for low porosity as mentioned by authors: Gori and Corasaniti 2013. And most importantly why cylinder unit model, when eventually spatial correction is needed?
3. The model is only applicable to soils with the same sized particles and pores, which doesn’t exist in nature. There is also no thermal resistance in contacts.
4. The cylindrical unit cell is considered to be the REV, which is false.
5. The only water volume is the water bridges between the particles, which its volume depends on applied suction. What about the bulk water volume trapped between the particles?
6. Are the Equations given in this research derived by the authors or they are taken from literature? The references should be given.
7. Table 3 depicts the thermal conductivities given to each phase (Solids, Water and Air). How these parameters are determined? Isn’t this a fitting curve? The authors claim in the conclusion that their model represents the physical basis of heat conduction rather than empirical models’ curve-fitting to experimental results.
8. What about the effect of particle size on ETC，

看来郑院士最近忙，我等了一个月也是1号给的修改意见

录用几率比较大呀，按照要求完整修改就好

应该是编辑犹豫过给不给你修改的机会，所以拖了这么久。我感觉2号审稿人最少给的你大修甚至就是拒稿，而且他不满意的地方已经牵涉到你这篇文章的本质了没办法改。。我的经验，这种审稿人二审也不会给你正面的。祝顺利

请问楼主最后结果如何？接收了吗？