在本报告中，（论文的）正评系指评议人的评议；逆评系指论文作者对评议人的评议的回复（responds）；反逆评系指评议人对作者回复的反应。

      本作者（简称作者）写此报告的宗旨是向读者报告所涉及论文（简称本论文），WHY？因为作者认为本论文的研究工作是杰出的(outstanding)，值得相关领域的研究者读一读。

作者写此报告的另一宗旨是“揭露”业内一些人士为阻止他人发表其outstanding work, 而不客观真实评议论文，大家在读过本报告之后，是不是可以到底这样的结论？请评议。

在下面给出两个案例：

案例 1：

A manuscript entitled "The Wöhler Curve Method for a low/medium/high cycle fatigue of metals". The paper was ever submitted to the Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology (New Series) twice. The numbers are #JHIT-2023-056- and # JHIT-2023-067.

关于 #JHIT-2023-056， 其正评和逆评详见附件11，因作者未收到评议人的回复，故没有反逆评。

附件11：    JHIT-2023-056-评议及回复.pdf

关于# JHIT-2023-067，其正评和逆评详见附件21和附件22：同样，因作者未收到评议人的回复而没有反逆评。

附件21：2023-067《JHIT(New Series)》-回复函.docx

附件22：E-mail –回复函- JHIT-2023-067.pdf

关于the manuscript, 请见附件33：  JHIT-2023-067_Proof_hi.pdf

      案例 2：

本案例，可详见作者的博客http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/yanxq19591015：副主编不客观真实评议科技论文, 你经历过否？，其博文如下：

最近，作者把题为“Research into applicability of the Wöhler Curve Method for a

low-cycle fatigue of metallic materials”（见附件1）的论文提交到“The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design”（下面简写JSA），收到的“论文评语”详见附件2。针对这种“论文评语”，本作者给 JSA杂志主编的质询函详见附件3，该主编的回复函详见附件4.

       由以上材料可以看出，该评议人（副主编）不客观真实评议我的论文。

       作者不知道为什么该评议人如此赤裸裸不客观真实评议我的论文。

附件1-论文JSA-22-0151_Proof_hi.pdf

附件2-评语-JSA.pdf

附件3：质询函（JSA）.pdf

附件4：回复函（JSA）.pdf

为便于阅读，本作者把副主编的“论文评语”（源于附件2）及我的“质询函”（源于附件3）列于下面。

          “论文评语”：

    Associate Editor(s)' Comments to Author: Firstly， the paper is confusing, as it uses the term 'stress intensity parameter' to describe a simple stress amplitude. The suggestion seems to be that using stress amplitude rather than plastic strain amplitude gives a better prediction of fatigue life for this particular material. It is difficult to see whether the approach could work with other materials and the novelty of the method is very limited. Therefore， the paper does not justify the space it would occupy in the journal.

        “质询函”：

Dear Prof. David Nowell，

  When convenient, please the reviewer explain what is “this particular material” and what are other materials in Associate Editor(s)' Comments to Author. At the same time, please the reviewer provide other materials and their low-cycle fatigue test data that the reviewer knows, the author of this paper will see whether the approach could work with other materials.

 By the way, as examples, by using low-cycle fatigue test data of 24 metallic materials from the literature, in this paper, it has been proven that the Wöhler curve method is suitable for low-cycle fatigue analysis of metals.

24 metallic materials are:

EN AW-2007 aluminum alloy[10] and EN AW-2024-T3 aluminum alloy [11].

A533B [12], Inconel 718[13], SAE1045[14], AISI304[15], Ti-6Al-4V[16], 6061-T6[17], 1Cr-18Ni-9Ti[18], AISI304[19], AISIH11[20], 34CrNiMo6[21], RAFM steels [22].

P92 ferritic-martensitic steel [23], Cr–Mo–V low alloy steel [24], S35C carbon steel and SCM 435 alloy steel [25,26], high strength spring steel with different heat-treatments [27], 316 L(N) stainless steel at room temperature [28], CLAM steel at room temperature[29]),

Eurofer97[30], F82H (a ferritic-martensitic steel)[31], En3B (a commercial cold-rolled low-carbon steel)[32], nodular cast iron [33] and low carbon grey cast iron [34].