24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者zhenjiansen511将赠送您 5 个金币

zhenjiansen511

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 17989.1
散金: 10
红花: 5
帖子: 1429
在线: 79.6小时
虫号: 453508
注册: 2007-11-07
专业: 法律史学

[求助] 投稿后初审和修改稿前后两次审稿意见反差巨大，求分析原因。已有1人参与

第一次意见：
Reviewer #1: There are quite some grammatical issues, including:
这里是6个语法问题。

Technical questions are:
1. Experimental section: 此处只要补充一些实验说明。
2. 此处也是一个补充实验说明的问题。
3. P8: What exactly is the resolution in V/mm? And how much is the resultant inaccuracy ?
4. Fig 5 and 8: beta%? beta in percentage or beta?
5. Fig 9 and Fig8(f): x-axis better be log scale than linear scale
6. P10: Be careful of "percentage" where it might have been "ratio". They mean similar things
but readers are likely to confused with the actual numbers.
7. Fig 9(a): what is SI? It seems to be D in page 11. Is 0.2% within error range?

根据审稿意见，我们进行了很认真的修改，然后得到第二次意见：
The authors did extensive research on the -----------. However, the goal of the research is fuzzy, the study non-innovative, and the study limited to essentially replotting the data. The paper shed little light on the fatigue behavior, other than reporting the data. Thus, I expect readers from academia or industry to benefit little from the current version in terms of understanding the physics behind fatigue.

唉，怎么会是这样的意见，如果是这样的意见，为什么一开始不说？这样的剧情反转有点厉害，实在不知道什么原因。

求大神分析可能的原因.

回复此楼