兩個審稿人給的意見很兩極分化，編輯最后給的Reject and Resubmit                  
Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors have systematically investigated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In general, the manuscript is very well written, and the results are of interest to steel community; therefore, I would like to suggest this effort for publication after some minor revisions.
三條意見還是比較好回答的
Reviewer #2: The present authors investigated the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In conclusion, the reviewer could not recommend the submitted manuscript for publication, considering the scientific impact of the journal. The primary reason for this decision is a lack of novelty. Detailed comments are as followed.
扣的很仔細，16條意見，給的建議確實還行。屬于工作程度很相似的同行，有些問題確實不太好回答，整個意見下來就沒有對我工作的一句好話。。。。
Overall: The scientific novelty of the present study is weak. The purpose of the study was not clearly outlined nor were the findings of prior work properly discussed in the Introduction. In the Results and Discussion sections, the discussion was not sufficiently supported by the results to make scientific sense, nor did this work illustrate a new scientific advance. There is too much speculation; furthermore the English expression is not clear, understandable, and easy to interpret. 返回小木蟲查看更多