[½»Á÷] Çë°ïæ·ÖÎöһϣ¬Ö÷±àµÄÒâ˼ÊǾܾø£¬½¨ÒéÖØͶÂ𣿠ÒÑÓÐ11È˲ÎÓë

ÎÄÕÂÉó¸å22Ì죬´Ó10ÔÂ1ÈÕ¿ªÊ¼£¬µ½½ñÌ죬ֻÓÐÒ»¸öÉó¸åÈË£¬¸Ð¾õÉó¸åÒâ¼û²»ÊǺÜϬÀû£¬µ«Ö÷±à¾Ü¸åÁË£¬Çë°ïæ·ÖÎöһϣ¬Ð»Ð»ÄúÃÇÁË¡£ ÎÊÈçºÎÀí½âϵͳ״̬ÖеÄrejectºÍdue on£¿ dear dr. gou: your manuscript has been quickly reviewed by a reviewer and the comments are attached at the bottom of this letter. in view of the criticisms made, the editors have decided that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in ffems. i hope this quick decision would allow you to reconsider or resubmit the manuscript elsewhere without delay. thank you for considering ffems for the publication of your research.   yours sincerely, prof. youshi hong editor-in-chief fatigue & fracture of engineering materials & structures, ffems@wiley.com reviewer(s)' comments to author: reviewer: 1 comments to the author review comments for the paper entitled ¡°xxxxxxxx¡± after reading this paper, this reviewer hesitates to recommend the publication of this paper in ffems. the topic of this paper is a traditional one and the methods are ordinary, which contain little new information. xxxxxxxxxxxxx the test data were quoted from ref. 28 which is a master¡¯s thesis and is not easy to be accessed. in the relevant description, it is not clear how the torsion load was applied. in p.5, line 3 from the bottom, it reads ¡°xxxxare shown in figure 5 (c).¡± in fact, fig. 5(c) is a photograph showing the tested specimen and the cracking image, which is not the result that is commonly understood with obtained values. overall, the novelty as well as the quality of this paper is insufficient to merit its publication in ffems. date sent: 22-oct-2020 SZJLKHBPX~REW40$47EYHBL.png

»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥