此篇文章投了两个期刊，第一次是学科内相当好的期刊，第二次是中等偏上的期刊，双双被拒；这是第三次，比第一次略差的期刊，也算学科内一流。一个半月后，收到审稿意见如下。第一审稿人的一两个意见确实难办，第二个还行。希望好运啊。

Reviewer #1:

I think this manuscript addressed an interesting and potentially promising topic. Also, it is obvious that the authors did an extensive search on the existing reports and research literature. However, I feel that this paper have some areas that need to be addressed.
First, ……

Second, ……
Third, ……
Fourth, ……
Finally, ……
I hope the authors find the review helpful and wish them good luck with their research in this area.

Reviewer #2:

The work is interesting but I wasn't convinced that the discussion or conclusions achieved that much apart from saying the obvious. I did like the way the discussion drew down data from a number of sources thus providing an uninformed reader with a range of good background facts and figures. I would have preferred to see more ambition in the paper's aim. There are many minor errors - often the definite article is missed out, quite a number of spelling errors, some references are very old yet are used to support current understanding. These all need attention. I thought the sources of data were in need of more care. There are other sources that are probably better than some that are mentioned.