两个审稿人给的意见很两极分化，编辑最后给的Reject and Resubmit                  
Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors have systematically investigated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In general, the manuscript is very well written, and the results are of interest to steel community; therefore, I would like to suggest this effort for publication after some minor revisions.
三条意见还是比较好回答的
Reviewer #2: The present authors investigated the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In conclusion, the reviewer could not recommend the submitted manuscript for publication, considering the scientific impact of the journal. The primary reason for this decision is a lack of novelty. Detailed comments are as followed.
扣的很仔细，16条意见，给的建议确实还行。属于工作程度很相似的同行，有些问题确实不太好回答，整个意见下来就没有对我工作的一句好话。。。。
Overall: The scientific novelty of the present study is weak. The purpose of the study was not clearly outlined nor were the findings of prior work properly discussed in the Introduction. In the Results and Discussion sections, the discussion was not sufficiently supported by the results to make scientific sense, nor did this work illustrate a new scientific advance. There is too much speculation; furthermore the English expression is not clear, understandable, and easy to interpret. 返回小木虫查看更多