[交流] 论文的评审意见回来了，要求修改，请大家帮我看看 已有2人参与

编辑给的意见： Dear XXX: We have reviewed your research paper, "XXXXXX," XXX_XXXX_XXX.  Below are the comments from two reviewers.  Before we can make a final decision on the research paper, the reviewers' comments must be addressed. When resubmitting your research paper, 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. To submit your revised research paper后面都是套话，省略了……) 共计两个审稿人，第一个人意见稍微多一些，第二个人几乎没针对论文的内容提问题，大家帮忙分析一下修改后被录用的机会大不大： 第一个人的审稿意见 Reviewer 1: The author describes an improved metrology method for determining the errors of a lapped screw for grating engines. There are several things which need to be added to make the manuscript more complete and usable to the reader.（从这位审稿人的措辞推测是倾向于接受还是据掉呢？） 1. Describe how the measurement laser beams can knowingly be positioned to balance within 0.2 mm about the axis of the rotating shaft. 2 Describe how the mirror is aligned within two seconds normal of the axis of rotation? 3. Also mathematically show the effect that the misalignment between the laser axis and the rotation axis has on the measurement.   4. What effect does the non-flatness of the rotating mirror have on the measurement? This is different from non-orthogonality. 5. Figure 12 should either have units on the axes or deleted. It is just the graph of two variable that are multiplied together with a constant. 6. In section , the terms "authentic" and "level of consistency" have no technical meaning. Please use terms that can be justified with values. 7. The phrase "Zoom the local area we can found" is unclear please change . 8. Please give a reference for the term "creeping". your use sounds more like sticking than creeping. 第二个人的审稿意见： Reviewer 2: I think this is solid work and the implementation of the interferometer to perform relative displacement between the screw and nut is unique.  I particularly appreciate the recognition in the conclusion of some of the shortcomings of the investigation, such as the impact of screw deflections and abbe errors.  With those qualifications I look forward to future work that accounts for these errors. 第二个人的意见没太看懂，个人觉得这个审稿人非常赞许我的工作，没给提实质性的意见，不知道理解的对不对。第一次发英文文章，英文水平也不好，请大家多多指教。

回复此楼