前一段时间投了篇文章,被拒稿,我不知道还有没有修改之后继续投的必要,其中有个审稿人说文章没有创新点,但是我都查文献了呀,就没查到相关的内容,这是问什么呀?审稿人意见如下:
I write you in regards to manuscript # JMES-13-0638 entitled "Design, meshing characteristics, and stress analysis of cylindrical gears with curvilinear shape teeth" which you submitted to Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science.
Thank you for considering Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
Sincerely,
Sarah Howe-Buck,
Assistant Managing Editor
The Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science Office
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The generation of tooth surfaces, unloaded and loaded TCA for cylindrical gears with curvilinear shape teeth was presented in this paper. However, for this type of gearing, there have been extensive studies performed on the manufacturing and contact characteristics. And I can not find enough highlights in this paper. So, publication for this paper would appear premature. Also, some problems need to be further improved in this paper.
1, The literature review part in the introduction is not sufficient.
2, For the tooth surface generation part, the meshing equation can not be found. Also, many figures are not clear enough.
3. For the new algorithm mentioned in page 5 for unloaded TCA, did the author perform the verification analysis with the general algorithm? How can you think that the results are right?
4, The relation between the unloaded TCA and loaded TCA in the paper is not clear.
5, In numerical examples part, two cases were used here. However, to reduce the difficulty of installation as the reason to use case 2 is not reasonable in my opinion.
6, In page 8, the author mentioned that “Same results were obtained by experimental tests. The……”, but I can not find any experimental results in the paper. Since there are no tested results to verify the theoretical computed results, from the point of publication, more in-depth results and analysis should be added to the paper before acceptance.
7, English language revision required.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The authors intend to provide a procedure of design and investigate the meshing characteristics and stress analysis of cylindrical gears with curvilinear shape teeth. After a thorough revision of the paper, the procedure described by the authors is completely theoretical, far from any manufacturing technique and do not provide the real surfaces of curvilinear gears. The provided geometry is not based on a real generating tool. The authors use a rack cutter to generate an involute profile (Figure 2) in 2D space. Then the involute profile is rotated to get the tooth surface in 3D space. This approach is totally wrong if the real surfaces of curvilinear gears are to be studied. The sentence in line 19 of page 3 is unacceptable in a scientific-paper: “Gear tooth surface is approximately produced by sweep the involute and fillet curve along tooth trace BOA” that summarizes what was described before and main weakness of the paper. Therefore, the provided design, meshing characteristics and stress analysis results are useless because the provided results are far from those that can be obtained for the real geometry of curvilinear gears. Authors are recommended to use the theory of gearing in order to obtain the generated gear geometry from circular cutters provided with the generating profiles as shown in Figure 2 of the paper but in 3D space and do not use geometric approximations in order to overcome some difficulties in gear generation. This paper cannot be recommended for publication in its current version.
Associate Editor(s)' Comments to Author:
Associate Editor: Hills, David
Comments to the Author:
As you will see from the attached reviews, this article falls some way below the journal's standards. I do not wish to consider it any further. |