求问!ICCT论文格式模板不用latex写吗,我没找到latex模板,谢谢了,可以回复我一下吗
编辑还是肯定你的工作,编辑给了小修说明偏向你的工作,如果倾向第一审稿人,估计就是大修了,委婉和客气的修改基本没有什么问题了~!
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。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。最后,给出你的综合评价,接受,修改,还是拒收。审稿是编辑人员的一种职能,编辑人员对作者创作的文字、图像等材料为对象所进行的判断、鉴定和评价工作由审读、写审读报告两部分组成。又称审读。审稿是编辑工作的关键,是决定图书质量的重要步骤。各类原稿的审读,通常采用初审、复审、终审三级审稿制度。初审要求通读原稿,提出基本评价和处理意见。复审要求复核初审意见,判断其正确程度,并解决初审中未能解决的问题。终审应对原稿质量和能否采用,作出最后决定。三级审稿都应有书面审稿意见,这是一部书稿在编辑过程中一项重要的记录,是 书稿档案的重要部分,它还是对各级编辑人员进行业务考核的重要依据。对一部书稿的评价如有不同看法,原则上应服从终审意见和决定。对于一些较为复杂的书稿,可以通过一定的会议形式,集体讨论作出决定。从审稿的各方面,包括过程,方法,都是相对比较周密,严瑾的,从而更加确保了文章的质量,也引导了我国文化知识的正确方向。
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。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。最后,给出你的综合评价,接受,修改,还是拒收。审稿是编辑人员的一种职能,编辑人员对作者创作的文字、图像等材料为对象所进行的判断、鉴定和评价工作由审读、写审读报告两部分组成。又称审读。审稿是编辑工作的关键,是决定图书质量的重要步骤。各类原稿的审读,通常采用初审、复审、终审三级审稿制度。初审要求通读原稿,提出基本评价和处理意见。复审要求复核初审意见,判断其正确程度,并解决初审中未能解决的问题。终审应对原稿质量和能否采用,作出最后决定。三级审稿都应有书面审稿意见,这是一部书稿在编辑过程中一项重要的记录,是 书稿档案的重要部分,它还是对各级编辑人员进行业务考核的重要依据。对一部书稿的评价如有不同看法,原则上应服从终审意见和决定。对于一些较为复杂的书稿,可以通过一定的会议形式,集体讨论作出决定。从审稿的各方面,包括过程,方法,都是相对比较周密,严瑾的,从而更加确保了文章的质量,也引导了我国文化知识的正确方向。
SCI论文审稿,意见撰写。这个意见赚钱,你首先得要有论文啊,你这个没有论文看见不见论文,让我们胡写什么呀?
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。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。最后,给出你的综合评价,接受,修改,还是拒收。审稿是编辑人员的一种职能,编辑人员对作者创作的文字、图像等材料为对象所进行的判断、鉴定和评价工作由审读、写审读报告两部分组成。又称审读。审稿是编辑工作的关键,是决定图书质量的重要步骤。各类原稿的审读,通常采用初审、复审、终审三级审稿制度。初审要求通读原稿,提出基本评价和处理意见。复审要求复核初审意见,判断其正确程度,并解决初审中未能解决的问题。终审应对原稿质量和能否采用,作出最后决定。三级审稿都应有书面审稿意见,这是一部书稿在编辑过程中一项重要的记录,是 书稿档案的重要部分,它还是对各级编辑人员进行业务考核的重要依据。对一部书稿的评价如有不同看法,原则上应服从终审意见和决定。对于一些较为复杂的书稿,可以通过一定的会议形式,集体讨论作出决定。从审稿的各方面,包括过程,方法,都是相对比较周密,严瑾的,从而更加确保了文章的质量,也引导了我国文化知识的正确方向。
编辑要求在COVER LETTER逐点解释修改的内容,对所有同行评议的内容都应逐点解释。逐点的意思是要回答审稿人的每个问题。而不是详细列举在文章中如何具体修改的(用红色标出来就可以了或是word的跟踪修订功能) SCI文章修回的COVER LETTER模板如下: Dear DXXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised We hope that the revision is acceptable, and I look forward to hearing from you With best wishes,Yours sincerely,XXXXXX================================================================(换页)We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive and positive Replies to Reviewer 1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXReplies to Reviewer 2XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXReplies to Reviewer 3XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
据学术堂了解,一篇医学论文审稿意见至少要包含以下三条意见: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,要给予肯定。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。最后,给出你的综合评价,接受,修改,还是拒收。
评阅时,请参照以下几方面提出意见:1) 研究问题:明确性、科学性和前沿性;2) 研究成果:理论意义或实用价值,明确的学术思想,创新性;3) 研究方法:方法的选择与运用是否恰当和具有针对性;4) 基本能力:基础理论、专门知识、文献综合分析能力;论证是否充分、严密、正确,计算和实验是否可靠无误,成果是否科学、合理、完整,写作是否规范;5) 论文的主要缺点和问题;6)是否同意答辩。
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 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 ◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould be 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨: The conclusions are For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer 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 problem8、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 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 10、严谨度问题: MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove 11、格式(重视程度):◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our It is close but not completely I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows ◆ Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and 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 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 ◆ The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete ◆ As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause ◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is E◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct ?◆ the quality of English needs 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 been edited because the subject is ◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied B◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of