RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Dear Dr:

We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions:

Comments from the Editor-in-Chief:

回复后1月，要求小休，并认为英文水平已经大大提高，要求明确我下一步想如何研究，因此老外由帮我写了回复信，如下是第二封信的开场白：

Dear Dr. Chernick:

We must thank you and all other reviewers for the critical feedback. We feel lucky that our manuscript went to these reviewers as the valuable comments from them not only helped us with the improvement of our manuscript, but suggested some neat ideas for future studies. Please do forward our heartfelt thanks to these experts.
Based on the comments we received, careful modifications have been made to the R1 manuscript. All changes were marked in red text. In addition, we also have a native English speakers double-checked the English for the revised R2 version. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions:

Dear Editor:

Thank you very much for your supervision of the reviewing process of my manuscript (Ref. No. of XXXXXXX). We also highly appreciate the reviewer’s carefulness, conscientious, and the broad knowledge on the relevant research fields, since they have given me a number of beneficial suggestions. According to the reviewer’s instructions, we have made the following revisions on this manuscript:

1. After examining the reviewer’s comments carefully, we must admit that we have
not expressed our meaning correctly in the previous manuscript. Sorry for this confusion. In the revised version, the “rougher” has been corrected as “weaker and
broader”. (See Line 7 from top, 3.1 Phase identification).

2. As suggested by the reviewer, Fig. 3a has been referred into the revised manuscript
to reveal flattening of the milled powders. (See Line 4 from top, 3.2 Microstructure)

3. In the review comments, the reviewer has pointed out that “The particle size of the
powders in Fig. 3b&c appear to be comparable?” We have again examined Fig. 3b
and 3c carefully. Compared with the particle size of powders in Fig. 3b, the particle
size of particles in Fig. 3c showed a very slight increase. (See Line 17 from top, 3.2
Microstructure)

4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have outlined the operating mechanism in the revised manuscript for the sake of better understanding and clarity. (See Lines 7-11 from top, 4.Conclusions)

5. In the review comment, we are very appreciated to know that a marked hardcopy of
the manuscript has been sent by post concerning additional corrections of English
language. We have waited the hardcopy for more than 2 months since May 9, 2008.
However, we have not yet received the hardcopy till now, due to some unknown
reasons. With the permission of XXXXXXX (Email: XXXXXXX), we have invited another native English speaker in　our university, who is a visiting professor from USA engaged in the research field of　Materials Science and Engineering, to go through the whole manuscript. The English　language in the current manuscript has been polished and improved.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will be
acceptable for publication in XXXXXXX.

Thank you very much for your work concerning my paper.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely yours,
XXXXXXX