| 查看: 2165 | 回復(fù): 12 | |||
cai05330金蟲 (小有名氣)
|
[交流]
投materials and deisgn 的第二篇,雖然沒被拒,但是感覺比較悲觀 已有12人參與
|
|
一個(gè)月內(nèi)同時(shí)投了兩篇在M&D,第一篇修改稿發(fā)回去了,狀態(tài)under review,第二篇結(jié)果回來了,但是審稿人1的意見很負(fù)面,糾結(jié)中,不知道希望如何 Dear Mr ****** The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments. If you are submitting a revised manuscript, please also: a) outline each change made (point by point) as raised in the reviewer comments AND/OR b) provide a suitable rebuttal to each reviewer comment not addressed To submit your revision, please do the following: 1. Go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/jmad/ 2. Enter your login details 3. Click [Author Login] This takes you to the Author Main Menu. 4. Click [Submissions Needing Revision] When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Yours sincerely, K.L. Edwards Editor in Chief Materials and Design Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: 1- Manuscript needs to be edited for some grammar and dictation irregularities, e.g. page 3, line5: polishing 5 ., should be: polishing with 5 .. Page 4, second paragraph, line 3: the claim of "The slope of those curves", those curves is not a good statement for explain about the curves shown in Fig. 4. 2- In research highlights, no.1 is not a new result of this research and is expected in any hardness measurements. 3- The claim of "Indentation hardness showed strong indentation size effects in experiments" in research highlights and abstract is referred to nothing. The effect of indentation size on what should be mentioned. 4- Keywords could not address the paper properly. It seems some keywords are missed. 5- The last six lines of Introduction section are written in a format that is not common. This part could be composed of overall pathway of the research. 6- Some parts of table 1 are got disordered in the file. Also, the composition of the alloy should be written in wt.% not in wt. 7- The scale bars of Fig.2 and Fig.3 should have a unique format. 8- Some indentation traces in Fig.3 are gone out of alpha phase. It could introduce some errors in hardness measurements. 9- Fig. 9 is an illustration of the mesh used for FEM modeling. But in the page 9, section 3.3.2 it is claimed that "The FEM simulation model is illustrated in Fig.9". 10- Why elements in FEM modeling are not selected as squares? In rectangular shaped models, the strain and stress distribution could not be defined uniformly through the whole area. 11- In page 10, it is claimed that "R is a commonly used statistical parameter .", but a better parameter for evaluation the best fitted curve is the value of R^2. For the presented data, R^2 is equal to 0.9956. It seems that by considering this value in calculating the average error, higher error values are achieved. This issue is concerning because it may reject the linear relation hat is claimed in the manuscript. The relative high error value (12.02 %) could confirm some deviations from linear curves fitting. Could author(s) explain more about this error value? 12- The overall review about the manuscript shows that the only new work that is conducted in this research is working on Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Any new relation or behavior about micro indentation or the resulted mechanical measurements is not reported. Also, any compare between the data obtained from this work and data obtained from other methods is not performed. Reviewer #2: First keyword should be corrected as Non-ferrous metals and alloys. In thirs research highlights the sentenced should be corrected as "led to a good agreement with the experiment" In page 3 line 2 um should be corrected as micrometer or |
金蟲 (正式寫手)
至尊木蟲 (文壇精英)
木蟲 (著名寫手)


至尊木蟲 (正式寫手)
銀蟲 (小有名氣)
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 材料與化工272求調(diào)劑 +9 | 阿斯蒂芬2004 2026-03-28 | 9/450 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 085600,材料與化工321分求調(diào)劑 +9 | 大饞小子 2026-03-28 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研]
|
nnnnnnn5 2026-03-25 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 調(diào)劑 +3 | 好好讀書。 2026-03-28 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 數(shù)一英一271專碩(085401)求調(diào)劑,可跨 +4 | 前行必有光 2026-03-28 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 085602 307分 求調(diào)劑 +7 | 不知道叫什么! 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿南昌大學(xué)324求調(diào)劑 +7 | hanamiko 2026-03-27 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 083000學(xué)碩274求調(diào)劑 +7 | Li李魚 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 311求調(diào)劑 +3 | 希望上岸阿小楊 2026-03-23 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 材料求調(diào)劑 一志愿哈工大總分298分,前三科223分 +5 | dongfang59 2026-03-27 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑推薦 材料 304 +15 | 荷包蛋hyj 2026-03-26 | 15/750 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿上海理工能源動(dòng)力(085800)310分求調(diào)劑 +3 | zhangmingc 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 307求調(diào)劑 +8 | 超級伊昂大王 2026-03-24 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研] 325求調(diào)劑 +5 | 李嘉圖·S·路 2026-03-23 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 327求調(diào)劑 +7 | prayer13 2026-03-23 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 07化學(xué)303求調(diào)劑 +5 | 睿08 2026-03-25 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 335求調(diào)劑 +4 | yuyu宇 2026-03-23 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿重慶大學(xué)085700資源與環(huán)境,總分308求調(diào)劑 +7 | 墨墨漠 2026-03-23 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 315分,誠求調(diào)劑,材料與化工085600 +3 | 13756423260 2026-03-22 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑院校信息 +6 | CX 330 2026-03-21 | 6/300 |
|