审稿意见分析与修改

　　审稿意见分析与修改。ROCK MECH ROCK ENG审稿意见回来了，审稿人总体评价还好，但提出了6条具体意见，主编给了大修。前3条意见关于语言问题，很好解决。后面3条（如下），貌似有点复杂；请大家出出主意。

This is indeed a very interesting work and is worthwhile to be published after revision. Such a large scale field test data are rare and would be very useful for other researchers working in this area.
4. The comments in the abstract are a little , i.e. "The central part….., similar to a ^^^. That is why ….. study site." In my opinion ... layers; it is wrong to draw an analogy with the ^^^.
5. Section 3.2- This section is very important as it contains the actual filed test data analysis. I suggest that the authors devote considerable time to expand and make this section clearer; I had difficulty following the text precisely. Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 4 needs to be explained clearly.
6. I could not follow the significance of Section 4.2.3 specifically Figure 5. I suggest the authors make this section short and concentrate their effort in explaining Figures 5 and 6.

4. 意见是说，我在摘要中不能做出^^^这样的类比吗？事实上，我论文中Section 5讨论作用原理，用了^^^来做类比，并且分析了我的实测结果与^^^的相似性。但审稿人不认可，并提出了自己的见解。对于他指出的那句话，不仅在摘要中有这一句，在Section 5和结论中都有， 是不是说我这一部分要重新讨论，还是说我仅仅把类似相关的这些话删掉就行了？
5. 审稿人作者花更多精力扩充3.2节，并把这一部分写清楚；目前的内容审稿人不能很好地理解。表1和2，图4需要解释清楚。 他这是说我对数据的分析不够吗？我Section 3 就是Results，呈现的就是实测结果数据，具体的分析和讨论我已经放到Section 4里面了。该怎么破？是否需要把Section 4的一部分调过来？
6. 是说审稿人认为Section 4.2.3节不重要，尤其是图5；作者把主要精力集中在解释图5和6上来。看了这条意见，我再读论文，发现确实讨论有内容有点散，可以删除那些与图5和6不相关的内容。问题是我还要再对图5和图6再做分析吗？我认为解释清楚了啊。怎么破？

请大家多多提出宝贵意见。
===有问必答===
对于５：表１和表２分析不够深入，需要补充，具体分析放在ｓｅｃｔｉｏｎ４，你可以解释，不一定调换布局
对于６：与文章不是很紧密，可以删掉的部分尽量删掉，这样显得文章凝练，不松散。
祝楼主文章早日接受。
----

3。

5楼2014-07-23 23:21:18
----

请问神虫，这个能中吗？


----
This is indeed a very interesting work and is worthwhile to be published after revision. Such a large scale field test data are rare and would be very useful for other researchers working in this area.
就凭这句话就必须中啊。
小弟也投了一个RMRE，虽然意见偏正面，不过远没有这么高的评价。修改中，希望修改稿也能如楼主般得到审稿专家的肯定。