1. Low level of English writing.

Four papers were rejected and three were written by scholars from non-English speaking countries. Including papers written by scholars from English-speaking countries, I think their remarkable feature is that their English writing level does not meet the basic requirements. Two papers by China scholars (1,No. 1, written by a (doctoral) graduate student, 1, written by an associate researcher) have many Chinese-style English expressions. Some of these Chinese-style English expressions can be guessed, while others are uncertain. As a reviewer, I really hope that the paper will be hired, but I am "helpless" about language expression.

2. Most of the research work reported in this paper costs a lot of money.

The research work reported in the four rejected papers is to spend a lot of money on specific research work. I remember 1 article reported that isotopes include the analysis results of Rb-Sr, C, H, O, S and other radioactive and stable isotopes. Although the work is not very original, it consumes a lot of time, energy and price. The analysis results are of great reference value to the studied area. I think this article can be hired after revision, so I use the conclusion of "major revision" to point out that the paper is the largest.

The problem is that the understanding and explanation of Rb-Sr, S and other isotope analysis results are not in place and deep. And put forward specific suggestions for modification. But I didn't expect to be rejected in the end. Another article is a systematic analysis of trace elements in lake sediments.