Hi everyone,
That's great, thank you, and I feel significantly encouraged! One is more marginal changes (extend the scope, reads like a PhD chapter-it does!-so place it in a broader context) and the other was much more critical, saying there was 'serious concerns' about some elements, which they have outlined and given me three months to put right. I'm very happy because I have great feedback, but I was not sure if this was a particularly bad outcome. I retrospectively checked, and both are INT1 journals, which perhaps I should have checked first! I am quite naïve with all this!