24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

zjcanjux

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 342.7
散金: 854
红花: 2
帖子: 127
在线: 40.3小时
虫号: 3256170
注册: 2014-06-05
专业: 传热传质学

[交流] 一审给了major revision请问修改稿写word审阅模式么已有10人参与

第一次投SCI，这样的意见最后接受概率大么？修改稿是用word审阅模式么？直接上传审阅模式么？还是自己标注？
求各位大神指教。
以下是编辑和审稿人意见。

Dear Prof. ..,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Optics and Laser Technology. I have completed the review of your manuscript and a summary is appended below. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments.

When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments, outline every change made point by point, and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed.

Comments from the editors and reviewers:
-Reviewer 1

General comments:

In this manuscript, the weld pool behaviors and ripple formation in dissimilar welding under pulsed laser have been studied. A three-dimensional transient computational model has been developed to study this complex problem. The calculated results have been verified by experimental results. The manuscript is worth publishing， however I would like the authors to consider the following points before final acceptance.

Special comments:

（1）    The English needs to be improved throughout the paper.
（2）    If the cross-section shown in Fig.7 is the same place as shown in Fig.5 or not？

（3）    P4.Line1 “It is assumed that the mixing of two dissimilar materials did not occur at the process of keyhole formation”, what are the reasons that the authors put forward this assumption?

（4）    Explanation

of Az2 in equation (3) is missed.
（5）    The calculated niobium concentration has been compared with the experimental result, but the explanation of the differences exist is omitted.

-Reviewer 2

  - 1. Totally, the content of this article is good and new, relevant to laser technology and mechanical engineering.

2. I think more explanation and discussion of the results and little bit more analysis is needed.

3. More figures and better quality of the given figures should be provided as the three-dimensional model is done, and also table of the results and supplementary data should be brought more fully.

4. Some basic information of the paper are referred to the references that it is better included in the text briefly.

回复此楼