[ÇóÖú] ÐÞ»ØÒ»ÌìºóÖ±½ÓÏÔʾAwaiting EIC Decision

ÈçÌ⣬СµÜµÄÎÄÕÂÒѾ­µÚ¶þ´ÎÐÞ¸ÄÁË¡£Òâ¼ûÊǽ¨Òé·¢±í£¬µ«ÊÇÒ²ÌáÁ˼¸µãÒâ¼û£¬¾ßÌåÈçÏ£º 1.The Introduction section needs to be rewritten to explain the relevant background work and the authors¡¯ contribution. The authors did not describe what is already known about the creep behavior of the alloy they are investigating and how their own work is different. 2.What novel scientific insights about the material behavior emerge from the authors¡¯ work? What unsolved problem the authors are attempting to solve? The authors should have provided sound justification for the research explaining how their work was an improvement upon the state-of-the-art or how it addressed unsolved problems in the published research literature. 3.The revisions have addressed only some aspects. Unfortunately, a number of new mistakes of English grammar and sentence structure have been introduced in the new material besides the mistakes that existed in the original manuscript. The initial review was meant to critique the content and mistakes in writing and presentation were not pointed out. Below are a few randomly found mistakes in the revised manuscript; many more mistakes exist but are not listed. The paper should not be allowed to move forward unless all mistakes have been corrected. ÔÚÎÒÉÏ´«Ð޸ĸåÒ»Ììºó£¬Ö±½ÓÏÔʾAwaiting EIC Decision£¬ÊDz»ÊÇÒª±¯¾ç°¡£¿£¿

»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥