| 查看: 1993 | 回复: 9 | ||
| 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 | ||
ayuthepeople铁虫 (小有名气)
|
[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» 猜你喜欢
293求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
290求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
285化工学硕求调剂（081700）
已经有8人回复
-
211本，11408一志愿中科院277分，曾在中科院自动化所实习
已经有5人回复
-
材料与化工304求B区调剂
已经有8人回复
-
有没有大佬发小论文能带我个二作
已经有4人回复
-
考研调剂
已经有5人回复
-
267一志愿南京工业大学0817化工求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
293求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
302求调剂
已经有8人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 大牛们来帮小弟看看这个要求怎么回复审稿人啊
已经有6人回复
- 帮忙分析下审稿意见
已经有3人回复
- 审稿人的意思是不是可以再重新投一下？
已经有4人回复
- 大家看一下这个审稿人的回复，还有戏吗?
已经有32人回复
- 三个审稿人都拒审，怎么回事？
已经有32人回复
- 请帮忙看看审稿人写的审稿意见是什么意思啊？
已经有8人回复
- 修改后回复审稿人建议格式问题
已经有6人回复
- 生物类的请帮忙看下审稿意见，急！！
已经有21人回复
- 求高人帮忙分析下APL审稿意见
已经有7人回复
- 专家审稿意见，请大家帮忙分析！
已经有5人回复
- ImechE Power and Energy 第二次大修，请大家帮忙分析一下怎么回复审稿人
已经有10人回复
- 这样的审稿意见退休后直接接受的可能性大不？
已经有11人回复
- synthetic metals 投稿，审稿意见， 请各位帮忙分析一下！
已经有6人回复
- 大家帮我分析一下material and design的审稿意见，录用几率大不？
已经有24人回复
- JAP文章大修后，审稿人神速回复（20分钟），不知是凶是吉【已经接受，谢谢各位关心】
已经有39人回复
- 审稿意见回来，一个审稿人让据，编辑说大修，大家帮我看看希望大不
已经有24人回复
swordwangke
银虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 8 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 12432.9
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 1861
- 在线: 82.2小时
- 虫号: 1524372
- 注册: 2011-12-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机构学与机器人
4楼2013-10-19 09:56:41
successfulsbl
木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 2006 (讲师)
- 金币: 15721.6
- 红花: 45
- 帖子: 3388
- 在线: 851.9小时
- 虫号: 286119
- 注册: 2006-10-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 有机分子功能材料化学
ayuthepeople2楼2013-10-18 10:53:56
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
3楼2013-10-19 09:32:37
jinwei331
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 3742 (副教授)
- 金币: 28683.7
- 红花: 73
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 26959
- 在线: 1170.4小时
- 虫号: 2085922
- 注册: 2012-10-25
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机械测试理论与技术
【答案】应助回帖
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
| 不用想那么多，既然让你修改，就说明改后录用的希望还是挺大的，按意见好好修改就是。 |
» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
5楼2013-10-19 16:16:42
50