ÐÁÐÁ¿à¿àÁ½ÈýÄ꣬һ¾ä»Øµ½½â·Åǰ¡£
½Ê¾¡ÄÔÖ׫ÎÄÕ£¬Äκαà¼Ì«ÎÞÇé¡£ Ì«ÎÞÇé°¡£¡£¡£¡
±¾ÈËС˶£¬×öµÄÊǼӹ¤·½ÏòµÄ£¬ÉÏѧÆÚͶÁËһƪcomposite B £¬µ»¸æÁËÒ»¸ö¶àÔµ«Ô¸ÄܽÓÊÜ¡£Ã»Ïëµ½×îºó±»¾ÜÁË£¬¾ÜÁ˾ÜÁËÎÒÔÙͶ±ðµÄÔÓÖ¾Ò²ÐС£µ«ÊDZ༾ÜÎÒµÄÀíÓÉ¿´²»¶®¡£Ïë¿´¿´´ó¼ÒÓÐûÓÐÕâÑùµÄÔâÓö°¡£¡±à¼ºÍÉó¸åÈËÒâ¼ûÈçÏ£º
Dear ****,
I regret to inform you that the reviewers of your manuscript have advised against publication, and I must therefore reject it.
Due to the high standards of Composites B, many submitted papers of insufficiently high quality are declined. For your guidance, the reviewers' comments are included below.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
****
Éó¸åÈËÒâ¼ûÊÇÕÒ³öÎÊÌ⣬Õâ¾Í°ÑÎÒÖ±½Ó¾ÜÁË£¬ÐÄÀï²»¸Ê°¡¡£
In general, the research was well planned, organised and conducted and the work demonstrates the improved performance of the PBT-RCF composite, albeit without major surprise. However, there are several aspects which needs improving or addressing:
1.**********************
2.**********************
3.**********************
£¨¾ÍÊÇһЩ¿ÉÒÔÐ޸ĵÄÎÊÌ⣩
In general, the reviewer is in favour of the manuscript's publication, as long as the above points are properly addressed. The paper is a useful addition to the literature on RCF composites.
¸ù¾øÉó¸åÈËÒâ¼û°ÑÎÒ¾ÜÁË£¬ÕâÊÇÉñÂíÇé¿ö£¡ |