期刊论文专家审稿意见

王应宽Wang Yingkuan2011-07-23Beijing, China因为同时在运作3本国际英文刊（IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal），论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别，而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性，随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是：欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值，台湾地区的同行评审专家次之，大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见（所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的），看看便知，一目了然。我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是，一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿，要么直接拒审，要么敷衍几句了事；比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审，最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意，存在较大的差距。国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动，没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子，有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动，别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关，也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作，相互帮助，虽然没有评审报酬，但大家都觉得平等。而且，国外的专家大都言行一致，故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此，大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付，三言两语，或言之无物，或毫无参考价值？主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”，以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历，不论评审中文文章还是英文文章，国内专家评审意见普遍简单，评审的质量不高，不但看不出有改观的迹象，还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题，专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表，错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时，就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关，编辑部又无能力通过内审把关，发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢？非也。据了解，许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时，他们非常积极认真地评审论文，并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见，国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题，而是态度问题，“时间”问题，或者有其他方面的原因。同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。如果大家都不在乎，把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”，学术危矣！国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然，限于各期刊的经济困难，审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此，同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱，也不在乎自己的声誉，不知道他们究竟在乎啥？中国是雷锋诞生的国度，按理说，当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈，就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较，中国的同行专家做的还很不够，需要好好向国际同行学习。附：CIGR Journal栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见June 27, 2011Dear Prof. H L L:Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAs CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to , the manuscript is deficient in several scientific decision is to decline the manuscript without peer preliminary review is attached to the end of this note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work ., Section III editor,Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Section Editor ReviewTitle: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESCIGR # 1911Authors:H L L et 27, 2011General:The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the manuscript is not acceptable in its present needs a lot of biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil only description given is that the soil was a sandy like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear , tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was : A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was , the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, . ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the , and and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong index is normally given in MPa or , the values for cone index are much lower than normally is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105�0�2 C for soil moisture like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are , things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you , how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass?3)In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the )In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an )In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the )In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the )Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chiefI recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form.中国大陆专家1评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper assess the O2 consumption rate and the CO2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this comments:In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorI hope the paper will be published to guide more ’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家2评审论文意见(相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了)Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I comments:(1)I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper.(2)In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 、、 respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “、”.(3)The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorReviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家3评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring comments:Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in . It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section . It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section . This paper is required re-review after Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor

审稿意见怎么写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。英文论文审稿意见汇总以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。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。Itis noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertisein technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar,spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study areclear to the 、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 experimentsshould be 、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study 、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showifthe side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer 、对hypothesis的清晰界定：Ahypothesis 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 、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previouslyknown work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is animprovement on previous 、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove 、格式（重视程度）：◆ In addition,the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completelycorrect. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors"which shows examples.◆ Beforesubmitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared andformatted. If you are unsure, pleaseconsult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the"Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of 、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆ It is notedthat your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise intechnical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar,spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study areclear to the reader.◆ The authorsmust have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service beforesubmission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences containgrammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆ Aspresented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense,and clause construction.◆ The Englishof your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistancefrom a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language isEnglish.◆ Please havesomeone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper andcorrect it. ?◆ the qualityof English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆ I would bevery glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject isinteresting.◆ There iscontinued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of BiomedicalMaterials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.◆ TheSubmission has been greatly improved and is worthy of 怎样写英文审稿意见首先说明一下，写这篇博文是缘于张忆文同学的博文（审一篇SCI稿件，整个人都不好了（续）。张同学的博文其实写得很不错，自己的切身体会，很有参考价值，我是认真读了。但博文后附上的英文审稿意见却让我哑然失笑。我这里声明一下，丝毫没有嘲笑，显摆的意思，因为这是张同学第一次写英文审稿意见，老实说比我当年第一次审稿写得好多了。话说我第一次给英文期刊审稿，并不是期刊编辑邀请，而是导师安排的任务，具体地说就是主编邀请导师审稿，导师出于训练我的目的，让我先审，然后再跟他讨论，修改。我当时的审稿程序是这样的：首先打开金山词霸和google翻译，干什么呀？查生词呗。要知道人家写的英文还有很多不认识的单词，不查哪行啊！就这样，我几乎花了三四天的时间，总算把人家的论文看完了。看完以后这审稿意见可怎么写啊？没办法，只能去找导师。导师说审一篇文章，第一要看的是文章的结构。什么是文章的结构？文章的结构其实是指文章的内在逻辑关系。什么是内在逻辑关系？简单地讲就是文章的引言部分文献回顾是否全面，是否层层铺垫提出问题，是否在引言末尾概括本文内容框架。引言过后就是methodology部分。这部分无非常用的就三种方法：解析理论，实验，数值计算或者再加上一个Case study. 这几部分的内在逻辑，也就是这几种方法是个什么关系，前后顺序是什么一定要清楚明了。否者你就大胆地写上这样的句子：This paper is not well structured. It is difficult to follow. 然后明确指出论文结构应该如何修改。第二，就是英文。关于英文问题首先要看作者出身。如果是亚洲人，重点注意中国大陆，日本的作者，韩国，中东的作者的也好不到哪里去。这些地方的作者大多数英文都是有问题的。有问题当然需要修改。这时候可以用这样的句子：There are sloppy grammatical and editorial issues everywhere in this paper. Many of them could cause difficulties to the readers. 然后举几个例子。这里给个小窍门，如果对自己写的某个词，或句子不是很有信心，那就放到google里搜一下，很容易找到相似的语句，以核实自己写的东西是否地道。第三，就是专业问题的探讨。专业问题的意见，如果能抓住要点，击中要害，即使你最后把文章毙了，作者也会心服口服的。当然，大家都没什么深仇大恨，不见得非得往死里搞，才能显出你的严谨，高水平。指出问题的同时，如果能给出建设性的修改意见是最受欢迎的。第四，强调细节。大家可能都有这样的体会，审稿意见切记假大空，高大上。而是要从细节出发，以理服人，用事实说话。这样才有说服力。相反，如果不分青红皂白，一句缺乏创新性，就把文章给毙了，就会很让人不服，同时，这样的审稿意见也会让主编很为难。如何才能让人服气呢？你说人家的方法没有创新，请给出你详细的理由，最好给出相关的参考文献。第五，整理自己的审稿意见，如果能适当分类会更好。比如说：-Technical items for which revisions are compulsory:-Technical items for which revisions are recommended:-Items for which editorial revisions are required:这样无论对主编做决定还是作者修改都非常清楚，一目了然。同时也说明审稿人至少看起来很professional.最后说个窍门：很简单，就是认真解读自己论文的审稿意见，认真学习，包括学习人家使用的英文套路，记熟，等自己审稿时，如数奉还，档次一下就上去了。自己到底什么水平，天知地知，我知，你不知。

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。