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

mikko梦

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 12401.3
散金: 224
红花: 3
帖子: 1359
在线: 466小时
虫号: 1027490
注册: 2010-05-24
专业: 金属材料表面科学与工程

[求助] 请问这是审稿人的意见还是编辑的意见（投稿十天后给发的邮件），中的可能性大吗？

Sample TextThe 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/jolt/

2. Enter your login details

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

4. Click [Submissions Needing Revision]
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Andrea Cusano, Ph.D Optoelectronics
Receiving Editor
Optics & Laser Technology

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:  The manuscript combines the metallurgy of the laser treated surfaces and the fatigue response of the workpieces. I would suggest the following amendments in the manuscript:
- The experimental error associated with the fatigue tests should be given in the manuscript and the error bars should be included in figures 5-12.
- The morphology of the specimen surface is very important (even more important than that of below the surface) in fatigue tests. The cellular structures as shown in figures 3 and 4 can be formed below the surface and it is not exactly composing of the dendritic structures. Unequal sizes of the cellular structures indicate the unevenly cooling rates in the laser treated region.  This issue has to be addressed in the manuscript. In addition, SEM micrographs showing the surface morphology due to different melt profiles will be useful.
- I would recommend that authors may include the following papers
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 49 (9-12), pp. 1009-1018, 2010.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript discussed the thermal fatigue behavior of hot-work steel processed by laser technique. The material, sample preparation, experimental method, etc were described detailed by the author. But this manuscript was similar to a report of experiment. There were the points should be paid more attention to next time:
(1) The tense was not uniform of the full text.
      In 3.3, the first sentence used present tense and the second sentence used the past tense. The same situation appeared in 3.3.1.1.
(2) Subject and verb were not match
      In abstract, if the subject was "the thermal fatigue behavior", the verb matched it cannot be find.
      In 3.2, Fig. 4 shows..., Fig.4(a)-(c) shows...
      In 3.5, Fig. 13(a)-(b) are., Fig. 14a is.
(3) The format was not uniform of the full text.
      In 3.5, Fig. 14a is., . in Fig. 15(a).
      In 3.2, Formula given by (1)., in 3.3.1.2 .as followed formula [2].
(4) The structure of the paper was too complicate.
(5) Although the materials was processed by laser, but it just mentioned YAG laser and maximum 300w. We did not know the specific parameters of the
      laser beam during experiments, such as the power, the beam quality, beam size, beam shape, etc.
(6) The "remarkable improvement" mentioned in the abstract is obscure. Did it mention the conclusions of this paper or the biomimetic method?

回复此楼