林浩赶紧向下滑动页面。

下面，是两位审稿人的详细审稿意见。

Reviewer #1 (审稿人一号):

“This manuscript reports a very interesting finding in a Zr-based bulk metallic glass, which exhibits both high strength and significant plasticity. The experimental work is solid, and the microstructural analysis ??????? TEM is convincing. The ‘multiple shear bands’ mechanism ?? provides a reasonable explanation for the observed phenomena. The work is novel and timely, and I would remend its publication in Scripta Materialia after a minor revision. I only have a few small suggestions for the authors to improve the clarity of the manuscript…”

审稿人一号的意见，充满了赞美之词。他/她充分肯定了这项工作的创新性和重要性，只提出了一些关于图表清晰度、语言表达等无关痛痒的小问题。

“这个审稿人，是个好人啊！”林浩看得眉开眼笑。

“别急，看第二个。”陈默的表情，依旧没有任何放松。

林浩怀着愉快的心情，继续往下看。然而，当他看到审稿人二号的意见时，他脸上的笑容，瞬间凝固了。

Reviewer #2 (审稿人二号):

审稿人二号的意见，与一号，简直是天壤之别。通篇充满了质疑、挑剔，甚至是一种毫不掩饰的、居高临下的“恶意”。

意见的第一条，就直击要害：

“1. The authors claim to have fabricated a BMG with ‘exceptional’ plasticity. However, the concept of ‘multiple shear bands’ is not new. Similar phenomena have been reported in other alloy systems years ago. The innovation of this work is, therefore, questionable. The improvement in plasticity is merely incremental, not a fundamental breakthrough.”

小主，

（作者声称制备出了一种具有‘超凡’塑性的金属玻璃。然而，‘多重剪切带’的概念，并不新鲜。类似的现象，在其他合金体系中，几年前就有报道。因此，本工作的创新性，是值得怀疑的。这种塑性的提升，仅仅是量变，而非根本性的突破。）

林浩的拳头，瞬间握紧了。这番话，和那天在大组会上，张远说的话，何其相似！都是在用一种看似客观的语气，来从根本上否定他们工作的创新性。