小弟第一篇SCI论文投到四区的一个期刊上，目前收到三个审稿人意见，编辑给了大修，但是其中一个审稿人没有给出任何评论，另两个审稿人都提到了实验误差数据太大。请大家帮看看，像这种情况该怎么修改？其中，抗压强度和颗粒密度都是测了15个样品后得出的数据分析和误差分析，吸水率取得是三次测量后的平均值。
Reviewer #1:  In Figure 4, why is there no error line in the "1 h water absorption" curve, and why does the increase in CaO content lead to a wavelike shape of the "1 h water absorption" curve? Besides, the author needs to explain whether the wave pattern is obtained from multiple tests. Maybe this result is due to the experimental error. In the study, the error in the test results was too large to obtain a credible conclusion.

Reviewer #2: The important thing for this manuscript modification is the compressive strength with worse error bars in Figure 2,3,4 and 5. What should I comment on with the results based on these data?

Reviewer #3: There are no comments

 返回小木虫查看更多