评审过程： 第1次提交到该期刊，返回一个负面意见，编辑按评审人意见，直接 reject 该论文。 在作者写信反驳后，编辑重新找了4个审稿人， 所有4个审稿人给了正面的意见，小修发表。

经验：好东西或创新强的东西，尤其是突破性的东西，往往会被更严厉的评审，这在中外都一样。所以，正确的东西要坚持，这仅仅是一系列工作中 （从‘王模型’，到‘最完整最综合的解’，到‘王精神’），一个艰难发表过程的例证。希望对有志与科技研究的青年和学生有些帮助。

   ‘不新’，‘不重要’ 有时被滥用，这种评审意见要提供证据，谁和哪里已经做了同样的工作。

Dear Prof. XXX,

Thanks for your email and time.I am regretted to receive your decision. As expected, the reviewer did not deny the methodology and its generality. In practice, the reviewer has confirmed that the flow field designs are very important for commercialisation of fuel cells while he states‘a well-known general phenomena’ and ‘a general belief’. Ishould remind that the reviewer’s criticisms look reasonable but in fact they are nothing. The key is not ‘well-known’or ‘general belief’ but ‘solution’ or ‘practicalmeasures’.Otherwise, any work can be rejected using these unprofessional reasons because there is always someone else working on same area. Therefore, the reviewer’s criticisms are so universal that they can be used to reject any paper in fuel cells.

‘Well-known’or ‘general belief’ just demonstrates the importance ofthese problems. The key is new, better and useful solutions to justify publication. It is in this paper that we present new, better and usefulguideline/solution how to determine flow fields and parameters and how to achieve uniform flow distribution. Honestly, the reviewer did not mention any other publication which is better than the present work in this field. If he has, I would like to see a list of publications rather than a cheap ‘well-known’ or ‘general belief’. I am surprising that he rejected this paper using the unprofessional reasons without any evidence. If the reviewer is unhappy for my paper, please find some professional reasons. This will definitely save his reputation. The authors are wandering how the reviewer got his judgement without any evidence.

      I feel that the editors of Fuel Cells have ability to judge objectively what a quality work is. The reviewer’s comments are unreasonable and are misleading your editors. The present work will definitely be a milestone for the commercialisation of fuel cells since it provides practical guideline/solution to determine flow fields and parameters.These progresses will save much money and time to accelerate commercialisation of fuel cells. It will benefit many scientists and engineers if they access the model in this critical time of the commercialisation. On the other hand, the reviewer is always welcome to publish his criticisms/comments with this paper together if he has a brief of his criticisms. He, I hope, can accept the academic convention to demonstrate that he is a serious scientist for his comments. Let’s clarify seriously these scientific problems in a public forum. The detailed rebuttals are given in the “one-to-one” corresponding to the reviewer’s comments.

     Thank you very much foryour consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Sincerely,

Recommendation: Reject

Comments:
In this paper, Wang’s model was extended for the flow field designs of othermost common layout configurations, including single serpentine, multiple serpentine, parallel straight channel, and interdigitated configurations aftera small modification.

The paper may be accepted as a technical note (if the journal has this paper category) and also it must be significantly shortened. The key contribution of the paper is the applicationof Wang’s flow distribution model to several flow fields. The flow distribution uniformity and pressure losses from different designs was compared.  The paper is too length and redundant. A lot of discussions about water and thermal management are well known general phenomena. A good flow distribution will make a better thermal and water management, which is a general belief in the fuel cell society. Since the paperdid not do specific investigation on thermal field and water concentration field, discussions on these issues should be brief and concise.

>>  Firstly, it is true that the water and thermal management are well-known general phenomena and there is a lot of discussion about them. Thanks for your confirmation that a good flow distribution will make a better thermal and water management. These confirm the importance of flow distribution in the water and thermal management. Therefore, it is clear that the present work is addressing the key and important issue in the field of fuel cells.

 Secondly, flow field designs including water and thermal management are a ‘well-known’ but ‘never solved’ problem. The authors are wondering if the reviewer thinks that water and thermal problems have been solved rather than a general belief in the fuel cellsociety? I would like to ask a question is how to determine flow field and how to achieve a good flow distribution without a quantitative and systematic understanding of different configurations? Therefore, the reviewer should tell me not a ‘well-known’ phenomena but a ‘well-known practical solution’. Now I should remind that it is in this paper that we have improved our understandingsof different flow field designs and established a theoretical framework to compare different flow fields. Therefore, let’s make it clear that the present work is able to compare themost common layout configurations and to determine flow fields and parameters for the first time. Furthermore, it demonstrated theoretically and quantitatively how to improve the performance (flow distribution and pressuredrop) of different configurations for the first time. I am really happy for your confirmation of these contributions to flow field designs in fuel cells. These demonstrate that the present research is new, quality and useful for flow field designs in fuel cells.

       Thirdly, although there are many models and experiments of flow fields in different configurations, all of them are separated and qualitative. There is no any systematic and quantitative comparison. Thus, it is impossible tohave practical measures to optimise flow field and to solve systematically water and thermal problems. It is in this paper that we have a direct, systematic andquantitative performance comparison between different common layouts. The importance of this work is to provide a practical solution/guideline how to determine layouts and how to achieve uniform flow distributions using systematic and quantitative approaches. From qualitatively toquantitatively, is it a step forward?  From separated to systematic, is it a step forward?  Do you agree with me? Ifyou do not agree with me, please show a list of publications who has performed this importance work of quantitative and systematic description of differentlayouts!  

     Fourthly, there is much ambiguity since different flow field designs have never been compared quantitatively andsystemically before. Because of separated information, there are no practical measures in all the publications (Li and Sabir, Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005; 30:359 – 371; Hamilton andPollet, Fuel cells2010; 10 (4):  489–509). In this paper, the authors have raised many key issues to address in this field (P9, Lines 9-25; P 10, Lines 1-7). It is clear that these questions have been ignored by many researchers, such as the reviewer, so that he could not see any new and significant information to justify publication. Therefore, it is justified to clarify the ambiguity using several pages about relationship of flow distribution and waterand thermal management and highlights the importance of uniform flow distribution in water and thermal management. It is in this paper that we present a more systematic review of relationships between flow distribution and water and thermal management.

      Finally, the reviewerdid not show any concrete criticism/evidence to against the interpretations and conclusions justified by theresults. The authors are wondering how the reviewer got his judgement. The key is not ‘well-known’ or ‘general belief’ but ‘solution’ or ‘guideline’. It is this paper that shows a systematic and quantitative solution/guideline to thermal and water management using uniform flow distribution.  These demonstrate that the present research is new, quality and useful for flow field designs in fuel cells. If the reviewer is unhappy for the paper, please find some professional reasons rather than a ‘universal’ one.

The flow fields in Fig. 12 (a) and12(b) are obviously impractical, and I doubt anybody will consider it in anactual design, and thus the significance of studying these two fields isquestionable.

>> The pin-type and the criss-cross type were not ‘obviously’impractical although the reviewer doubt anybody will consider it in an actual design. The pin-type and the criss-cross type were studied long time ago [Reiser& Shawer, US Patent No. 4769297, 1988; Barbir F. Fuel cell stack design principles with some design concepts of micro-mini fuel cells. S. Kakaç edited, A. Pramuanjaroenkij and L. Vasiliev (eds.), Mini-Micro Fuel Cells. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008]. It was many previous experiments that show their problems. However, it is in this paper that we explained theoretically why they suffered from non-uniform flow distribution. The results show that the non-uniformity of flow distribution in both the criss-cross and the pin-type configurations are not inherent rather than a poor design. This refreshes our insight of non-uniform flow distributions in the criss-cross and the pin-type configurations and suggest how to improve the pin-type and criss-cross (Fig. 12c).