8

We have carefully studied comments from our reviewers concerning your paper. Although we fully appreciate the time and effort you have put into this paper, we are unable to reach a conclusion to accept the paper in its present form for publication in Soils and Foundations.

Your paper would be reviewed again as a newly submitted paper if you rewrite the paper by cosidering the following reviewer's comments to the extent satisfactory to our committee. When and if you submit a revised version of the paper, please quote the present paper number.

We sincerely hope, however, that the decision will not terminate your interest in our journal, and that we will have opportunities to be of service in the future.

Yours sincerely

Prof. Junichi Koseki
Editor in Chief
Soils and Foundations

Reviewers' comments:

1. General Comments to Author:
This manuscript examines the cyclic liquefaction resistance and the correction factors, Kσ and Kα, which were estimated separately based on simple shear and triaxial tests. It is a well-written manuscript on a very hot research topic of soil liquefaction and stress normalization factors of Kσ and Kα. However, the technical content needs to be substantially improved before it can be considered further. In addition, the novelty of the study reported in the manuscript in its current form is not necessarily evident. The authors should consider shortening the manuscript to focus on the novel aspects as well as clearly highlighting them and associated limitations. This means that the current manuscript has been rejected, but, the authors are encouraged to re-submit a substantially improved manuscript as a new paper for Soils and Foundations，

改了更好啊

顶

，

这明显就是拒，不是让你重投，审稿人对你的论文是负面，如创新性，你改完可以投其它。被拒重投，没有被编辑同意的，投过去直接拒，不管你改的怎么样。

，