24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

cai05330

金虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 1398.2
红花: 1
帖子: 126
在线: 111.9小时
虫号: 801925
注册: 2009-07-01
专业: 金属材料的力学行为

[交流] 投materials and deisgn 的第二篇，虽然没被拒，但是感觉比较悲观已有12人参与

一个月内同时投了两篇在M&D，第一篇修改稿发回去了，状态under review，第二篇结果回来了，但是审稿人1的意见很负面，纠结中，不知道希望如何

Dear Mr ******

The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form.

However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript.

Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments.

If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please also:

a) outline each change made (point by point) as raised in the reviewer comments

AND/OR

b) provide a suitable rebuttal to each reviewer comment not addressed

To submit your revision, please do the following:

1. Go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/jmad/

2. Enter your login details

3. Click [Author Login]
This takes you to the Author Main Menu.

4. Click [Submissions Needing Revision]

When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

K.L. Edwards
Editor in Chief
Materials and Design

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:
1- Manuscript needs to be edited for some grammar and dictation irregularities, e.g. page 3, line5: polishing 5 ., should be: polishing with 5 .. Page 4, second paragraph, line 3: the claim of "The slope of those curves", those curves is not a good statement for explain about the curves shown in Fig. 4.
2- In research highlights, no.1 is not a new result of this research and is expected in any hardness measurements.
3- The claim of "Indentation hardness showed strong indentation size effects in experiments" in research highlights and abstract is referred to nothing. The effect of indentation size on what should be mentioned.
4- Keywords could not address the paper properly. It seems some keywords are missed.
5- The last six lines of Introduction section are written in a format that is not common. This part could be composed of overall pathway of the research.
6- Some parts of table 1 are got disordered in the file. Also, the composition of the alloy should be written in wt.% not in wt.
7- The scale bars of Fig.2 and Fig.3 should have a unique format.
8- Some indentation traces in Fig.3 are gone out of alpha phase. It could introduce some errors in hardness measurements.
9- Fig. 9 is an illustration of the mesh used for FEM modeling. But in the page 9, section 3.3.2 it is claimed that "The FEM simulation model is illustrated in Fig.9".
10- Why elements in FEM modeling are not selected as squares? In rectangular shaped models, the strain and stress distribution could not be defined uniformly through the whole area.
11- In page 10, it is claimed that "R is a commonly used statistical parameter .", but a better parameter for evaluation the best fitted curve is the value of R^2. For the presented data, R^2 is equal to 0.9956. It seems that by considering this value in calculating the average error, higher error values are achieved. This issue is concerning because it may reject the linear relation hat is claimed in the manuscript. The relative high error value (12.02 %) could confirm some deviations from linear curves fitting. Could author(s) explain more about this error value?

12- The overall review about the manuscript shows that the only new work that is conducted in this research is working on Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Any new relation or behavior about micro indentation or the resulted mechanical measurements is not reported. Also, any compare between the data obtained from this work and data obtained from other methods is not performed.

Reviewer #2: First keyword should be corrected as Non-ferrous metals and alloys.
In thirs research highlights the sentenced should be corrected as "led to a good agreement with the experiment"
In page 3 line 2 um should be corrected as micrometer or m.

回复此楼