小弟第一篇SCI論文投到四區(qū)的一個(gè)期刊上，目前收到三個(gè)審稿人意見，編輯給了大修，但是其中一個(gè)審稿人沒有給出任何評(píng)論，另兩個(gè)審稿人都提到了實(shí)驗(yàn)誤差數(shù)據(jù)太大。請大家?guī)涂纯�，像這種情況該怎么修改？其中，抗壓強(qiáng)度和顆粒密度都是測了15個(gè)樣品后得出的數(shù)據(jù)分析和誤差分析，吸水率取得是三次測量后的平均值。
Reviewer #1:  In Figure 4, why is there no error line in the "1 h water absorption" curve, and why does the increase in CaO content lead to a wavelike shape of the "1 h water absorption" curve? Besides, the author needs to explain whether the wave pattern is obtained from multiple tests. Maybe this result is due to the experimental error. In the study, the error in the test results was too large to obtain a credible conclusion.

Reviewer #2: The important thing for this manuscript modification is the compressive strength with worse error bars in Figure 2,3,4 and 5. What should I comment on with the results based on these data?

Reviewer #3: There are no comments

 返回小木蟲查看更多