本文分享某国际刊物某稿件的四份审稿意见。四位审稿人都是相关领域国际知名专家。四份审稿意见由简洁到全面，体现了审稿意见的四类风格。这几份审稿意见综合起来，归纳了如下七个评审要点（这七个要点便于编辑做出决议，便于作者回应）：
1）论文稿件信息
2）工作简介（主题、方法、完成的研究）
3）论文一般性贡献（解决的新问题，新的研究结果）
4）论文突破性贡献（全新的研究思路，意外发现等）
5）论文主要不足（方法、思路、结果和讨论等不足）
6）论文次要问题（语法、忽略、视觉等小错误或清晰度不足）
7）推荐意见（录用、修改、拒稿）
This is an excellent, well-written paper on a topical subject.
It was "in the air" for a while and I congratulate the authors with the completion of this important study. I recommend publication without delay.
This manuscript presents a very detailed and meticulous computational analysis of dissipative effects on two representative cases of steady-flow Mach reflection. In a convincing fashion it shows the intricate detail of the two cases. In particular, the strong case is shown to exhibit remarkably accurate self-similar behaviour, being identical over four orders of magnitude in Reynolds number when plotted in mean-free-path scaled space. This is shown to be not so in the weak-shock case. In the strong-shock case there remains a finite difference from the inviscid three-shock theory in the limiting case of infinite Reynolds number within a region of order a few mean free paths, while the weak shock case converges to it in that limit. This is an important contribution that should certainly be accepted for publication.
The manuscript is well written, except for a few cases of an article being inserted where there should not be one and vice versa. The work is well related to previous work in the field. One little point is that the pressure contour in figure 4a in block 3 in green is too indistinct.
This paper,through careful numerical experiments, demonstrates the significant and extremely interesting result regarding nonuniform convergence of the Navier Stokes equations to the inviscid Euler equation. The context is the interaction of 2 inclined shock waves in steady 2D flow and the results are, in the main, for strong shock waves. The conclusion, confirming some earlier work of Sternberg (1959), that the viscous solution does not tend to the inviscid as the viscosity limits to zero is the major achievement of the paper. The detailed flows computed also reveal interesting novel results including the shape of the Mach stem which now includes inflexion points. This nonuniform variation in the orientation of the Mach stem is revealed through the orientation of the sonic line.
There is a plausible argument presented for the difference between reflection for strong and weak shocks that is in part but not fully explained by the differences between supersonic and subsonic flows downstream of the reflected shock. There is still clearly opportunity for further analysis.
I strongly recommend publication of this paper as a carefully crafted set of numerical experiments and commentary. The results will be of great interest and wil encourage further research on the topic of shock reflection.
I have some a minor comment as a suggestion for readability. Figure 5 is Figure 4 blown up in the vicinity of the triple point. It is confusing that points A and B in Figure 4 do not correspond to A and B in Figure 5.
There are minor typographical errors but these are fairly obvious.
Comments to the Author
The paper deals with the effect of viscosity on the flow structure near the tripel point in the Mach reflection configuration. The authors investigate this problem by adapting a numerical approach developed by Ivanov et al. that solves the Navier–Stokes equation. The problem was solved in two Mach numbers (1.7 and 4). The numerical results were compared to the three waves solution (TWS). The authors found that the fluid parameters can't be calculated using the Rankine–Hugoniot relations near the intersection of the incident wave and Mach stem. Furthermore, in the limit of Re -> Inf. (when viscosity can be neglected) the solution is different from the TWS in some cases.
I find this paper suitable for publication after considering the following remarks and comments:
Major points
1. It is clear (to me) the TWS can not describe the actual physics in a tiny area in or near any shock waves. Therefore it is important to add a drawing where the boundaries of the region in it the TWS do not apply. On the other hand, I expect a viscous effect to appear near the SLdue to strong shear flow.
2. Since the typical length scale of the problem at hand is in the order of one to a hundred mean free paths, it is essential to present theKnudsen number and check the validity of the numerical solution for this case. Please note that according to Fig. 3, the grid size is in the order of the mean free path (Kn~1 in the cells). In this case, one should solve the expended hydrodynamics equations.
3. Following remark 2, when Kn is between 0.1 to 0.01, the flow is in the "Slip flow region," where the effect of viscosity is expressed differently with respect to its role in N-S equations.
Minor remarks
1. Fig. 11a please increase the font size inside the figure.
2. Figure 16, please emphasize better (a), (b), (c) , and (d) in the subplots.
To conclude, the contribution of the paper should be the quantification of the region where the TWS is not applicable; therefore, it is essential to present quantities, namely: quantify the borders of this region and relate it to the incident Mach number (maybe add some more cases not only M=1.7 and 4). Furthermore, in my opinion, in this high Kn number case (Transition region flow), the use of the N-S equation must be justified.
Other than that, the paper is written well, the structure of it is good (however, it is a bit too long, in my opinion), and the language is good too.
近几年，金博士博五在找工作的时候，都感受到了一种变化：作为一流大学的文科博士，即使手头握有几篇C刊，也不足以让他们在就业市场上脱颖而出。
就这已经是情况好的了。很多C刊已经不收博士生的稿子了。圈内人基本上都知道，能搞到几篇顺利毕业都实属不易。
但是现实是残酷的。能让高校人事领导格外青睐你的筹码已经从C刊变向SSCI了。如果你发的是SSCI，来了给啥都可能，包括博导、特聘教授。不信你看下面这个：
而与此相对应的是，如果你只是发了点普通C刊，不好意思，可能连要都不要。
所以，SSCI重不重要，你自己体会。
学术进修课堂SSCI专业定制论文辅导，全程对接SSCI评审指导，给定好发的选题、写作指导、推荐适合的刊物、投稿指导，解决SSCI不会写，不会发，数据统计分析难等写作过程中的一系列问题，写好之后专家对论文成稿修改辅导、期刊推荐与投稿指导，不用担心投稿问题，全程服务~
——助力学术成长
点击图片-（长按）识别二维码-前往小程序-购买课程
来源：学位与写作
