英文审稿意见汇总

1、目标和结果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me

thods used in the study.

◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments

should be provided.

3、对于研究设计的rationale:

Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：

The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show

if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：

A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：

What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

7、对研究问题的定义：

Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,

write one section to define the problem

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:

The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.

9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:

There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.

10、严谨度问题：

MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.

11、格式（重视程度）：

◆In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.

◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.

12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：

有关语言的审稿人意见：

◆It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

◆The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.

◆As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are

pro

blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.

◆The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str

ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i

n English or whose native language is English.

◆Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte

r of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?

◆the quality of English needs improving.

来自编辑的鼓励：

Encouragement from reviewers:

◆I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be

en edited because the subject is interesting.

◆There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm

itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied

Biomat

erials.

◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.

?The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your effort compares with state-of-the-art?

?The experiment is the major problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimental result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this result? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement?

?the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words.

?it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language.

?The authors did a good job in motivating the problem studied in the

introduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors propose.

?Apparently，Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humble opinion 如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用

you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .....according to review comments.

如果是接受，你可以用

We are very pleased to inform you that your paper "xxxxx" has been accepted by [journal name]. Please prepare your paper by journal template...............

At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece of work, reporting on ×××. Fine, good quality, but all this has been done and published, and nearly become a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, there is insufficient novelty or significance to meet publication criteria. Also, I did not see any expermental evidence how the ** is related with **, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.

建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。

the journal's copy editors should not have to fix the many remaining errors. I sympathize that Chinese languages do not have an equivalent of English articles 'a, an, the' and don't seem to grasp the material meaning of those words. The author's English expert decided to insert the word 'the' in front of most mentions of "tip-tilt system." This implies that there is only one system and the authors are using it exclusively. There are dozns of other misuses. Pages 2,3, 8,9,10,11, and 12 are littered with them. The paper is to difficult to read in its present form.

感想：一篇好的论文，从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢。

附1：中译审稿意见

审稿意见—1

(1) 英文表达太差，尽管意思大致能表达清楚，但文法错误太多。

(2) 文献综述较差，观点或论断应有文献支持。

(3) 论文读起来像是XXX的广告，不知道作者与XXX是否没有关联。

(4) 该模式的创新性并非如作者所述，目前有许多XX采取此模式（如美国地球物理学会），作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的创新点。

(5) 该模式也不是作者所说的那样成功……(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)

审稿意见—2

(1) 缺少直接相关的文献引用(如…)。

(2) 写作质量达不到美国学术期刊的标准。

审稿意见—3

(1) 作者应着重指出指出本人的贡献。

(2) 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析。

(3) 需要采用表格和图件形式展示(数据)材料。

附2：英文审稿意见(略有删节)

Reviewer: 1

There are many things wrong with this paper.

The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct.

The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references.

The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX.

The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model.

The model is also not as successful as the author claims. ……

Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.

Reviewer: 2

The are two major problems with this paper:

(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the "two-sided" market literature including that directly related to … (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).

(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal. Reviewer: 3

1. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript.

2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries.

3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.

Ms. Ref. No.: ******

Title: ******

Materials Science and Engineering

Dear Dr. ******,

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.

For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.

Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits:

1) the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;

2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ;-

Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal.

英文论文写作、投稿详解(整理各大学术论坛相关帖子，转帖)

目前科技论文作者向国际英文科技期刊投稿的方式有三种。一是传统的邮寄形式，即通过国际快件将论文的原稿邮寄给刊物的主编或编辑部。这种形式曾经是投稿的近乎唯一的方式，持续了漫长的岁月，可

现在采用这种方式接受来稿的刊物越来越少了。二是用电子邮件的方式投稿，即作者将原稿的电子文件发至主编或编辑部的电子信箱。这种投稿方式显然比邮寄快得多，但与邮寄一样，稿件也有丢失的时候。目前采用这种纳稿方式的期刊还很多，但有很大一部分期刊己经在此基础上，又进了一步，发展到第三种也是目前最新的一种投稿方式，即网上投稿(ON-LINE SUBMISSION)。这种方式速度快，而且稿件不会丢失。一旦作者在网上登记注册投稿，每个主要步骤都有记录，很受科技期刊作者的欢迎。本文将就网上投稿过程及作者应该注意的地方予以详细的介绍，供对此感兴趣的中国作者参考。

网上投稿的关键是要做好充分的准备工作。首先，作者对所要投稿的国际英文刊物的投稿需知(GUIDE FOR AUTHORS)要了解清楚，并且按照要求准备好原稿的所有文件。一般科技论文分为回顾性文章(REVIEW ARTICLE)，普通论文(REGULAR/RESEARCH ARTICLE)，快讯(SHORT COMMUNICATIONS)等。不同的文章类型，对原稿的格式要求也有所变化。单就普通论文而言，文章从头到尾的基本格式是：论文的开篇部分，包括文章标题(TITLE)，作者姓名(AUTHOR’S NAME)(注明通讯作者/CORRESPONDING AUTHOR)，作者单位地址(AFFILIATION)，论文摘要(ABSTRACT)，关键词(KEYWORDS)等；论文的正文部分，包括介绍/引言(INTRODUCTION)，实验方法(METHOD)，实验材料(MATERIAL)，结果与分析(RESULTS AND ANALYSIS)，讨论（DISCUSSION）, 结论（CONCLUSION）等；

需说明的是不同的学科，正文的内容和形式会有所增减，图表、公式的数量也会有所不同。正文后的结尾部分有的文章附加致谢辞(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)，有的则没有，但参考文献(REFERENCE)则是必须的。有的文章还带有附录(APPENDIX)，如全部的实验原始数据、计算机软件程序等。现在有的刊物可以在网上发表的文章中附带电子视听文件(E-COMPONENTS)。如短录像片(VIDEO CLIP)，动画片(SHORT CARTOON)等。作者要根据自身的情况，选择文章应该包含的内容，一旦确定，所有的内容都要在网上投稿前准备好。此外，不但原稿的内容和格式要符合刊物的要术，而且在字数、页数、格式、文件储存形式等方面，均要与投稿刊物的要求一致。否则，文章在初选阶段会很快落选。其次，是作者对投稿刊物网上投稿系统的熟悉和学习。如果可能，最好请有这方面经验的作者上一课，可以节省时间和事半功倍。如果找不到合适的老师，作者自己要耐心地自学。从刊物的网页入手，仔细阅读网上的投稿需知、跟踪链接或屏幕启示，把每个环节搞明白弄清楚。

在网上投稿，头一步是在网页上注册，也叫作者登记。实际上与网上购物注册没太大区别，关键是要把自己的姓名、单位、联系地址，包括电话、传真和电子邮箱等登记准确无误。二是按部就班地输入文章的各个主要部分。如题目、作者、摘要、关键词、正文、图表等。在输入每个部分的时候，一是要通读该部分的有关要求，再次确认自已输入的文件是否符合要求。这听起来并不难，但实际上作者在这方

面的疏忽却很多。比如按要求，原稿不能超过20页，可有的原稿长达40多页，甚至更长。有的文章作者完全忽略了刊物对关键词的要求，随心所欲。二是确认每个部分输入的完整性。有些作者在输入文件时过于匆忙，十个图只输入一半，这样的稿件即使到了编辑部也不能送审，只能返回作者补漏。如果审校员一时疏忽或主编没有查觉，将有缺欠的文章发出送审，则审稿人因为缺图，不能正常审阅文章。这样造成的麻烦所耽误的时间会更多。三是输入文件完毕后，也就是所有的部分成功地输入后，不要忘了点击投稿发送键。否则，稿件只会存储在作者自已的文件夹中，而不是发到编辑部。目前，许多科技期刊网上投稿，需把文件由一种存储形式转换到另一种存储形式，比如DOC文件变成PDF文件。在这个转换过程中，计算机屏幕会呈停滞状态，看上去好像死机了。其实不然，只需耐心等待罢了。原稿在网上成功投出后，作者马上就能收到编辑部的回执。如果有问题，屏幕上则会出现问题预警或解决问题的提示。如果作者不能自行解决故障或问题反复出现，作者可与出版社的网上投稿支持部门联系，求得帮助。此外值得一提的是，部分著名出版社的网页上除附有投稿需知外，还专门设计了针对网上投稿的指导示范文件。作者初学乍练时可以抽时间学习一下。总之，网上投稿并不难，关键是准备充分，而且在实际上机操作时按部就班，不能单纯求快，否则欲速而不达。

编辑部收到稿件后，有的是直接送审，有的是先进行一步初选(主要是检查论文的英文是否过关)，然后再送审。不论是哪种情况，论

文在送审前均需通过最基本的技术检查。目的是看原稿是否包含了应该有的基本内容。有些刊物的编辑部就设在出版社内，这类期刊的检查会更全面，包括文件形式、内容、作者联系方式、文章是否属于重复性投稿等等。一旦发现问题(比如原稿过长，关键词不符合要求等)，原稿会马上返回作者，进行必要的补充和修改。原稿一旦退回作者，文件便会重新回到作者自己在网上的投稿文件夹里，等候修改。与此同时，作者的电子信箱内同样会收到一封编辑部的来信，明确告之稿件应该进行修改或补充的地方。作者只需上网从自己的文件夹中调出文件修改即可。一旦文件修改完毕，作者又要根据出版社信函中的提示，上网按步骤再将原稿发回刊物的编辑部。这个操作过程和最开始的投稿大同小异，往往也要将DOC文件转换成PDF文件。原稿返回编辑部送审后，有的会很干脆地被拒绝，有的会顺利地圆满接受，但大部分原稿需按审稿人的意见进行规模不同的修改。经过作者修改过的稿件又需要在网上重新发回编辑部。但有的作者在接到主编或编辑部转来的审稿人意见后，对其评价有很大的异议或不愿改动自己的论文，便可以主动要求退稿。手续很简单，只需向编辑部发个电子邮件即可或自己上网撤稿。如果作者愿意根据审稿人的意见改动论文，则需改得全面彻底，并且对审稿人提出的疑问要一一做答。这份单独的问答要整理成一份单独的文件，在网上再次发稿时使用。如果缺少这份问答文件，在许多期刊网上投发修改稿时会出现障碍，应引起作者的注意。修改后的论文要从作者网上的论文文件夹里发给编辑部，最初的原稿可以存储在文件夹中，可作者一定要确定第二次投出的稿件

是修改后的文件，而不是初稿。这种张冠李戴的事在网上投稿过程中时有发生。文件名称明明显示是修改稿，可审稿人打开文件后才发现是初稿又原封不动地回来了，让人有点哭笑不得。修改过的稿件回到编辑部后，原稿的编码序号不变，只是多了一或二个尾数，表明是修改稿。有的稿件改动一次即可被刊物采纳，但也有的要反复修改多次才能被通过。对被否定的文章，如果作者对否定的原因有异议，可以向编辑部或主编提出自己的意见，据理力争。如果主编同意作者的意见，文章可以重新进入新的一轮审稿程序。这种情况不多，但在网上这样的文章也同样记录在案。在网上投出的稿件不论改动多少回，其序号都不会改变，只有尾数的变动，以表明是修改后的第几稿。比如R1是第一次修改稿，R2是第二份修改稿，依此类推。但每份修改过的文件在网上都有记录，而且每份审稿人的意见也都记录在案。不单如此，整个审稿过程中经过刊物网页发给作者的电子邮件也都有记录。总之，每一个步骤都有据可查，只要整个系统不出问题，就不会有稿件丢失的情况发生。

由此可见，网上投稿的好处的确很多，难怪深受广大作者的欢迎。现在有许多科技期刊已经告别了邮寄和电子邮件的时代，开始只受理网上投稿。今后，这样的期刊可能会越来越多。所以，能自如地驾驭好网上投稿这个新的投稿手段，对学者们而言无疑是件好事。

附录1.SCI投稿信件的一些套话

一、投稿信

1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:

I am sending a manuscr ipt entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - .

Yours sincerely

2. Dear Dr. A:

Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers.

3. Dear Dr. A:

Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.

We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.

二、询问有无收到稿件

Dear Editors,

We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.

三、询问论文审查回音

Dear Editors，

It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.

四、关于论文的总体审查意见

1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below.

2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There

are given below.

3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as –

4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.

5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of –because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .

6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.

7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.

8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.

9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of

that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.

10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

五、给编辑的回信

1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that –

One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.

2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.

3. Thank you for your letter of –and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.

4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed.

5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.

6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript

7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.

8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.

9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.

10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.

11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.

12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.

13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be

英文期刊审稿意见模板

1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples. Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen. 12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：

英文论文审稿意见英文版

英文论文审稿意见汇总 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. . Furthermore, an expla natio n of why the authors did these various experime nts should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的ratio nale: Also, there are few expla nati ons of the rati on ale for the study desig n. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The con clusi ons are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总

英文论文审稿意见汇总 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 ◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. ◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work. ：题问度谨严、10． MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with Instructions for Authors which shows examples. ◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared

英文审稿意见

在比较高级别的会议、期刊等，评审系统中包括给编辑的和给作者的评审意见。本文就这两部分评审以及进行汇总 第一部分：给作者的审稿意见 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 ◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. ◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show

英文论文审稿意见范文

This paper addresses an important and interesting problem -automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo. The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts. Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts. The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo. Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved: (1) The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paper in Section 1. (2) In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain a value very close to on GACS if all its accounts have entirely copied their own texts, images or contact information”. However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not considered when computing GACS. (3) In Algorithm 1 on Pg. 17, it seems that “t=t+1” should be added after line 6. (4) I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in Section 9. (5) There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.

英文论文投稿及修改流程

SCI投稿过程总结、投稿状态解析、拒稿后处理对策及接受后期相关问答综合荟萃目录（重点是一、二、四、五、六）： （一）投稿前准备工作和需要注意的事项、投稿过程相关经验总结 （二）SCI期刊投稿各种状态详解及实例综合（学习各种投稿状态+投稿经历总结） （三）问答综合篇（是否催稿、如何撤稿、一稿两投及学术不端相关内容等） （四）如何处理审稿意见（回复意见、补实验、润色、重整数据、作图及调整、申辩及其他） （五）Reject 或者Reject and resubmit后的对策和处理 （六）稿件接受后期的相关问题（作者信息、地址版权、单行本、彩图费、版面费、如何汇款、清样相关等） （七）进阶篇（如何选投SCI杂志、各专业方向期刊选择、SCI写作经验） （一）投稿前准备工作和需要注意的事项、投稿过程相关经验总结 投稿前准备工作和需要注意的事项： 总结提示语： 1)第一作者和通信作者的区别： 通信作者（Corresponding author)通常是实际统筹处理投稿和承担答复审稿意见等工作的主导者，也常是稿件所涉及研究工作的负责人。 通信作者的姓名多位列于论文作者名单的最后（使用符号来标识说明是Corresponding author)，但其贡献不亚于论文的第一作者。 通讯作者往往指课题的总负责人，负责与编辑部的一切通信联系和接受读者的咨询等。 文章的成果是属于通讯作者的，说明思路是通讯作者的，而不是第一作者。 第一作者仅代表是你做的，且是最主要的参与者！ 通信作者标注名称：Corresponding author，To whom correspondence should be addressed,或The person to whom inquiries regarding the paper should be addressed 若两个以上的作者在地位上是相同的，可以采取“共同第一作者”（joint first author)的署名方式，并说明These authors contributed equally to the work。 2)作者地址的标署： 尽可能地给出详细通讯地址，邮政编码。有二位或多位作者，则每一不同的地址应按之中出现的先后顺序列出，并以相应上标符号的形式列出与相应作者的关系。 如果第一作者不是通讯作者，作者应该按期刊的相关规定表达，并提前告诉编辑。期刊大部分以星号（*）、脚注或者致谢形式标注通讯联系人。 3)挑选审稿人的几个途径： 很多SCI杂志都需要作者自己提出该篇论文的和您研究领域相关的审稿人，比较常见的是三名左右，也有的杂志要求5-8人。介绍几个方法： ①利用SCI、SSCI、A&HCI、ISTP检索和您研究相关的科学家； ②文章中的参考文献； ③相关期刊编委或学术会议的主席、委员； ④以前发表的类似文章的审稿人； ⑤询问比较熟识的一些专业人士；

一些英文审稿意见的模板

一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】 来源：Elaine 王倩的日志 最近导师让我帮忙审了两篇英文文章，觉得写的都不怎么样，顿时觉得自己的也不太差吧嘿嘿。但是怎么写评审还是有经验需要学习，自己也不能写的太不专业。不过我的意见也不过是给老师写意见的一个参考，具体能不能过我就毋须多言了。 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem

英文论文审稿常用套话

编辑一般会发给审稿人一个提纲，类似于这样的： 文章编号 题目 对文章一个概括性的描述及审稿人自己的决定（接受，拒，大修，小修等） 审稿意见： 1、XX 2、XX 3、XX ... 审稿意见的一些套话 1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below. 2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below. 3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as – 4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added. 5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of –because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - . 6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory. 7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker. 8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined. 9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays. 10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

英文论文审稿意见汇总

英文论文审稿意见汇总 2011-04-24 19:24 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your m anus cript needs careful editing by s om eone with expertise in technical Englis h editing paying particular attention to Englis h gramm ar, spelling, and s entence s tructure s o that the goals and results of the s tudy are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 ◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and s tatis tical me thods us ed in the s tudy. ◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experim ents s hould be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Als o, there are few explanations of the rationale for the s tudy des ign. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclus ions are overs tated. For exam ple, the s tudy did not s how if the s ide effects from initial copper burs t can be avoid with the polym er form ulation. 5、对hypothes is的清晰界定： A h ypothesis needs to be pres ented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volum e ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Tr y to s et the problem dis c uss ed in this paper in m ore clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application propos ed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experim ental com paris on of the algorithm with previous ly known work, s o it is imposs ible to judge whether the algorithm is an im provem ent on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is eas ier than the prim itive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆In addition, the lis t of refere nces is not in our s tyle. It is close but not com pletely correct. I have at tached a pdf file with "Ins tructions for Authors" which shows exam ples.

一些英文审稿意见及回复的

一些英文审稿意见的模板 好东西 原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博 一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。 第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major 而不是minor 本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了majorrevision ，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue 的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue 。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A, B, C, D做比较，补充大量 实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue 。在Argue 的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对,他提出的方法也很好,但本文的重点是blablabla ,跟他说的不是一回 事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重,象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion ,这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子,编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四,聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见,如果是minor ,意见只有寥寥数行,那当然会情 不自禁的一蹴而就,一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候,问题在于要不要马上投回去了？ 我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major ，建议至少放一

论文评阅人评语

论文评阅人评语 篇一：毕业论文评阅人评语模板 毕业论文评阅人评语模板 vip6501 发表于2007-3-18 23:28:00 优： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，能够达到综合训练目标，题目有较高难度，工作量大。选题具有较高的学术研究（参考）价值（较大的实践指导意义）。 该生查阅文献资料能力强，能全面收集关于。。。。。的资料，写作过程中能综合运用。。。。知识，全面分析。。。。问题，综合运用知识能力强。 文章篇幅完全符合学院规定，内容完整，层次结构安排科学，主要观点突出，逻辑关系清楚，有一定的个人见解。 文题完全相符，论点突出，论述紧扣主题。 语言表达流畅，格式完全符合规范要求；参考了丰富的文献资料，其时效性较强；没有抄袭现象。 良： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，能够达到综合训练目标，题目有难度，工作量较大。选题具有学术研究（参考）价值（实践指导意义）。

该生查阅文献资料能力较强，能较为全面收集关于。。。。。的资料，写作过程中能综合运用。。。。知识，全面分析。。。。问题，综合运用知识能力较强。文章篇幅完全符合学院规定，内容较为完整，层次结构安排科学，主要观点突出，逻辑关系清楚，但缺乏个人见解。 文题相符，论点突出，论述紧扣主题。 语言表达流畅，格式完全符合规范要求；参考了较为丰富的文献资料，其时效性较强；未发现抄袭现象。 中： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，能够达到综合训练目标，题目有一定难度，工作量一般。选题具有学术研究（参考）价值（实践指导意义）。 该生查阅文献资料能力一般，能收集关于。。。。。的资料，写作过程中基本能综合运用。。。。知识，全面分析。。。。问题，综合运用知识能力一般。文章篇幅完全符合学院规定，内容基本完整，层次结构安排一般，主要观点集中邮一定的逻辑性，但缺乏个人见解。 文题基本相符，论点比较突出，论述能较好地服务于论点。 语言表达一般，格式完全符合规范要求；参考了一定的文献资料，其时效性一般；未见明显抄袭现象。 及格： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，基本能够达到综合训练目标，题目

审稿专家总结的英文论文常见问题-模板

审稿专家总结的英文论文常见问题 英语不是我们的母语,用英语写作论文当然就会出现一些问题。大多数人还不具有用英语思考的能力。在这种情况下,比较好的做法是先写中文稿再译成英语,这样至少能避免直接写英文稿时容易出现的语意不连贯的问题。英文稿中最容易出现的用词问题是: ⑴ 按汉语硬译,形成所谓的“中式英语”。虽然不大会看到“good good study, day day up”这类“洋泾浜”,硬译的情况还是常见的。有一篇论文把“车载的”译为“tank-load”,其实,单词“vehicular”的意思就是车载。 ⑵ 介词的使用不当,用“of”、“to”较多,其它介词用得少。 ⑶ 代词“this”、“that”用得多,“it”用得少,而后者恰恰在科技文章中用得多。 ⑷句型单调,喜欢(或不得不)用“to be”构成句子。 ⑸ 不注意动词的词性。有些动词既可是及物动词也可是不及物动词,应该优先用不及物动词成句,而不要用及物动词的被动语态成句。 ⑹ 冠词“a”、“the”的使用不当,尤其容易忘记使用定冠词“the”。 ⑺ 不注意名词的单、复数,不注意主、谓语的人称配合。 ⑻ 论文中的用词应该比较正式,尽量少用一词多意的词,例如,口语中“get”有“获得”的意思,但论文中最好用“obtain”。 ⑼ 中西文化的差异常常使英文稿带有“中国特色”。有一篇稿件的作者很谦虚,在文章的结尾分析了所提出的方法的缺点,说在今后的研究中会逐步克服这些缺点。外国人就不会这么说,他们总是向前看,即使看到了缺点,也会说随着研究的深入,这种方法将会有更广阔的应用前景。有些文章的作者介绍中非要在“教授”后面加个“博士导师”,外国人就想象不出不是博士导师的教授是什么样子

Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)

Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)

Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX: Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again. 1.Title: XXX 2.Manuscript type: Article 3.Corresponding author: XXX 4.Full author names: XXX Sincerely, Prof. XXX School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, XX Key Laboratory of Controllable Chemistry Reaction & Material Chemical Engineering, XX University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China. 2015-03-05

SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总

英文论文审稿意见汇总 以下12 点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审 稿人意见构成。 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 ◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. ◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis 的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented 。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/ 定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim, 如A> B 的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have

评语大全之英文审稿评语

英文审稿评语 【篇一：如何写审稿意见】 求如何写论文审稿意见？ 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条： （1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。 （2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。 （3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。根据以上三点，你可以适当发挥。 其他回答 紫胶啊啊 2009-10-20 09:53:16 专家如何审阅稿件，即如何正确评价一篇论文，专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。 编辑如何选择审稿专家 对于每一份专业的科技期刊（或称学术期刊），其编辑部都会设立一个庞大的编辑委员会，编委会主任一般都由在本行业（或专业）有一定知 名度的专家、学者担任，编委会成员由一大批本行业（或专业）的知各专家、教授或学者担任，在编委中，一般都要考虑到各大专院校相关专 业、相关科研院所及地域间的名额平衡问题，期刊主办单位和北京地区的名额相应会多一些，而一些省市的名额可能只有一个，有些经济和文 化相对落后的省区可能还没有编委。这种情况造成了一些编委天生地就只能是挂名或名誉的。有时一些编委几年都审不了一篇稿件，这种情况 是十分正常的。为什么呢？因为在编委会下，编辑部还会有一个审稿专家的名单，这个审稿专家名单是不公开的，这个审稿名单里的专家一般

都是处于年富力强、正在一线从事科研工作的专家学者。同时，有时编辑部还要根据具体情况聘请部分两院院士作为学术顾问，对一些对行业 有重大影响的稿件进行必要的审查。从而形成了编委不审稿、审稿专家不是编委的状况。编辑选择审稿专家的原则，首先，是专家的经历和学历，特别是专家的经历是最重要的。每年编辑部都要发表格给专家，让专家填写工作经历， 即专家系统数据库的刷新，通过“刷新”编辑会得到专家最新的研究动向和科学前沿，在编辑请专家审阅某一篇论文时，编辑就会“心中有数” 从而不会出现选择审稿专家时的“偏差”。当然高学历的专家也是编辑首选的目标。其次，是专家对审稿工作的认真负责态度。有些专家喜欢 做一些文字工作，而有些专家学者并不善于从事审稿工作。有些专家对待审稿工作競競业业，从标题到标点，从字词到结构，从正文到参考文 献等通篇都进行了修正，并做出全面而客观的评价意见，最后得出了采用与否的建议，这样的审稿专家从编辑的角度来说，是十分喜欢的。而 一些专家的审稿意见则是“不用”或“建议录用”几个字了事，对于不用的稿件，无论是编辑还是审稿专家，都应该明明白白地告诉作者不用 的理由，而简单的“不用”是无论如何也不能让作者理解的！如果审稿专家的长期这么简单的处理稿件，必将导致编辑对其的“淡化”。同时 对于由于繁忙而经常拖着不及时审阅的论文，编辑也会在以后的审稿安排中，少给这些“比较忙”的专家们审稿，有时可能就会在无声无息中 取消了这些专家的审稿资格。我接触过几位审稿专家，对论文的审稿意见竟多达三页纸（有时比作者的论文还长），还有一位教授不光给我写 了二张纸的审稿意见，还将国外一些最新的文献复印给我，让我转告给论文的作者。这种负责任的审稿专家是编辑工作的“开路先锋”，有了