各位大神，本人投稿vacuum期刊，目前大修狀態(tài)。該期刊編輯比較關注XPS測試，給的審稿意見如下：

For the surface and materials science scope of VACUUM, provide information for how the XPS was calibrated, the energy scale normalised, and the handling of charge referencing. Using adventitious carbon C1s is not advisable, if not risky, and should not be reported at face value without warning the reader about the uncertainties with the reported results: See and apply instead more reliable procedures in: Progress in Materials Science, 2019, 100591: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2019.100591, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy: towards reliable binding energy referencing, G.Greczynsky et al.

請問審稿意見是什么意思。我該如何改進論文，回復編輯。 返回小木蟲查看更多