Extensive papers are available in this field and hence a significance in novelty is required. （往常的该类型材料都是片状的，我做成全新的网格状了，我不理解为什么不算创新）
Of course, as the authors said, the exact procedure may be different but significance of the achievement is not convincing. （我把加了新成分的和未加的做了全面对比，结果全然不同，性能差异很大，我不理解为什么叫作用不彰显了）
As far as the scope of this journal is concerned, this paper deals with new additive, agent during deposition and for surface finishing. . . no other technological information is provided.（电化学过程啊，停了实验连信息的影子都找不到，让我去做原位么，我没条件啊，还是说让我做对本论文没意义的xps，afm骗人）
The extent of achievement in terms of results are not convincingly presented to understand in the present scenario. The basic support is also week (old references have formed the basis) and no comparison has been made in the updated current status. （对比工作从头到尾都有，不知道这个审稿人怎么看的？文献有少部分是60年代，那是因为添加物的基础结构很少有人做了，难道我不引，重新做一遍？我都写35页了，还叫weak啊，这审稿人从头到尾用week，英语都不过关，到底是谁的专业素养有问题呢）
The discussion is generally week and mostly focuses on Corrosion resistance (with little data). . .（讨论都进行到结构了，还叫“week”？而且腐蚀性能根本不是此文讨论的重点，是附带的啊）
and most of the content deals with optimization of deposition parameters including concentration w.r.t. improvement in surface properties in terms of corrosion resistance. The paper may be considered for its submission to a more specialized journal such as CORROSION science.

最不理解的是，编辑居然同意了他的看法，我有必要appeal吗，还是直接换一家算了，想听听大家意见。

 返回小木虫查看更多