谁见过这样的审稿意见？

　　谁见过这样的审稿意见？。最近的一篇，得到的审稿意见如下，编辑让major reversion，各位大神给点.怎么个搞法？
Dear Prof. X:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in The X. It has been examined by expert reviewers who have concluded that the work is of potential interest to the readership of The X; however, it appears that a major revision, possibly followed by further reviewer evaluation, will be needed prior to its further consideration for publication. Please see the enclosed reviewers reports for details regarding the requested changes and/or additions.
------------------------------------
Reviewer(s) Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: This paper is not recommended because it does not provide new physical insights.
Comments:
The authors studied X. The group has used this method to study polymer chains in solutions. Now they switched to small surfactant molecules. Such a system has been well studied in colloidal research. The method is a commercial instrument. I do not see that a combination of this system and this method has led us anything new. Yes, they did lots of measurement and summarize their results into some figures. That’s it! This is a laboratory report, not a scientific paper. Where are sciences? My guess is that these two authors just try to publish one more paper.
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: This paper represents a significant new contribution and should be published as is.
Comments:
This is a timely report that contains high-quality experimental data and appropriate interpretation. There are very few papers dealing with the kineticstransitions and this is an excellent contribution to the field of self-assembly. I recommend publication in X without any changes.
===有问必答===
你的论文是不是太像实验报告了？缺少分析?或者说是不是在堆数据而不是讨论科学问题？是的话就改，不是的话就想想怎么反驳吧。第二个审稿人给的评价很高，我觉得要么是第一个审稿人乱评，要么就是第二个审稿人是认识你们的人

[ Last edited by duxin_30 on 2010-9-11 at 10:34 ]
----

两个应该都是中国人，第二个显然是熟人，并且是极其不负责任的，给个小修也行啊，竟然是不做任何修改

相比较来说，应该第一个说的比较符合实际情况（虽然没看到楼主的文章，呵呵）

[ Last edited by polestar007 on 2010-9-11 at 10:39 ]
----
"This is a laboratory report, not a scientific paper. Where are sciences? "

如果不是工作简单或重复，那这就是文章没写好。改写一下，强调创新和理论，不要只是把试验记录放上去。
----
老板也算小牛了，写作不至于很差，以前审稿基本上都是well written
估计遇到仇人了。。。。。。。。。
第二个估计是朋友，搞的太裸了
----
呵呵，同意楼上的，两个可能都是中国人，这个大修也不好修啊，添加一些理论分析好了
----
大家分析的很有道理。

第一个说的比较实在，可能审核的时候认真看过。

第二个就说的太含糊，要么是熟人要么就是敷衍不负责人的那种。