二审意见,小修,但是这条意见让我很慌,是要补实验吗还是?麻烦各位大佬们指点下
主编给的二审意见,小修,但是这条意见让我很慌,是要补实验吗还是?麻烦各位大佬们指点下
Although being revised, in the current condition the contribution still does not manage to satisfactorily explain the novelty/impact of the results obtained - evolution of cavitation erosion of austenitic stainless steels has already been investigated and AISI 316L is a quite conventional austenitic stainless steel. It is strongly suggested, that the impact/novelty is pointed out more in detail.
返回小木虫查看更多
今日热帖
京公网安备 11010802022153号
重点是:审稿人对你的论文的创新性提出了疑问,你需要更加详细的说明清楚你研究工作的创新性。
没有让你补实验。编辑是说你的文章中对所得结果的创新性阐述不够具体,可能是你描述的太泛泛。建议楼主将创新性描述的更具体更实质性一些,
这条意见并不麻烦,多查点文献把自己工作的创新性好好阐述
已接收,谢谢各位大佬