24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

ayuthepeople

铁虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1313.4
散金: 48
帖子: 187
在线: 73.1小时
虫号: 1489292
注册: 2011-11-13
专业: 机械动力学

[求助] 能帮忙分析一下审稿人的画外音吗？ International journal of fatigue的。

投了international journal of fatigue.今天出来修改意见，是大修，2个审稿人，
一个说：

Reviewer #1: This paper assess the early growth of fatigue cracks in stainless steel (SS) 304 using the time-demanding and detailed replica technique; I also find quite adequate the objective and path proposed that do not assume LEFM assumptions. The methodology and the experimental results seem reasonable, but the conclusions are highly limited and arguable. Therefore, this paper cannot be published until the following comments are fully addressed, a major review of the data is done, and further analysis is performed.

The main concern of this reviewer is the originality of this paper. The techniques, the material and the loading conditions are not innovative, so the main value of the paper lies on the observations and their analysis, which are arguable. To be more specific, the conclusion section has three items: The first and third points are not innovative and similar results have been reported in the literature. The second point proposes that the stress level does not affect the crack growth, which is surprising and not well supported (see my arguments later). Therefore, the conclusions do not provide a major innovative contribution to the literature, and this must be improved before this paper can be published.

To my understanding, it is not possible to conclude unequivocally from the data presented that the stress does not affect the crack growth behavior since there is no enough data. Indeed, the paper proposes only a range from 330 to 370 MPa, which is very limited, and either two or three realizations, which seems to be not enough for the wide variability of the regime studied. Furthermore, the data for 370MPa in figure 5 starts at 200 microns and seem systematically above the rest. If the authors want to support their conclusion, they should compare the fittings for each stress level and different crack lengths. Moreover, the assessment of the stress should extended to other stress ranges for the same crack range.
然后提了十几个问题。

另一个说：
Reviewer #3: This paper presents some very nice experimental results on small crack growth and coalescence of cracks in 304 austenitic steel. The small crack experiments were performed on a single edge notch tensile coupons using an interruption/ replication method. The replicas were made using relatively new method and very good results were achieved. In addition, the experimental plan appears well thought-out and very nice fatigue data was generated. The results of the study show an interesting effect where the crack rate appears to be insensitive to the stress range employed in this study. Furthermore, experimental results show that small fatigue cracks likely initiate from grain boundaries instead of other types of inclusions (i.e., particles). Overall, the paper is well written and this reviewer enjoyed reading it. It is suggested that this paper be excepted for publication.

我i想问：
根据第一个人的审稿意见，我感觉问题相当尖锐，很难去回答，是不是这个审稿人很不看好我的文章啊？
而第二个审稿人貌似非常欣赏我的文章。‘
我想问要是我回答不好第一个人的意见，主编会不会还是会综合考虑审稿人2的意见，让我的论文发表。虽然我还是会认真一条一条改的，但是还是想先了解一下审稿人的意思，提前做好心理准备。第一个人问题真是不好回答。求助。。。

[ Last edited by cxksama on 2013-11-10 at 11:47 ]

回复此楼