论文审稿意见小修模板

问题一：如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 第三个审稿人的意见如下： Reviewer #3: The present paper addresses a hot topic of interest in the area. The first part section the paper presents a brief and concise state of the art of the domain approached. Since this topic has been intensively studied during the last decade and a large number of papers and books have been published, this part might be extended to include the most recent research in this domain, and have to be included in Chapter +References: . Preda, . Vizireanu, Blind Watermarking Capacity Analysis of MPEG2 Coded Video, IEEE TELSIKS 2007, 8th International Conference on Telemunications in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 26-28 Sept. 2007, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 465-468. . VIZIREANU, Preda, BD Milovanovic, A New Digital Watermarking scheme for Image Copyright Protection using Wavelet Packets, IEEE TELSIKS 2005, 7th Intern. Conf. on Telem. in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 28-30 September 2005, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 518-521. Some interesting papers have been published recently in CS&SP and have to be included in Chapter 1 +References. The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. Moreover, the performance design criteria are not addressed in the simulation part. The simulation results presented are sometimes uncler. The abbreviations presented in figures are not clear and should be explained in more detail. The results should be more emphasized and the concl......>> 问题二：sci第二次修改 该怎么写回复信件 List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ ments concerning ourmanuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those ments are all valuable and very helpfulfor revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guidingsignificance to our researches. We have studied ments carefully and havemade correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked inred in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to thereviewer’s ments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s ments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to ment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to ment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏 针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： 问题三：如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 给范文：Response to ments Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ ments concerning our manuscript entitled xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Those ments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied ments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s ments are as following: ments:（列举提问题切忌要遗漏任何项） 1. ......... Please check and revise. 2. .......... Please revise. 3. .......... Response:（表示遗憾谢并且详细说明改进程/或解释审稿疑惑要详细题号要应面问题编号） 1. We are very sorry for our unclear report in...... 2. It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to ment, related content have been improved. ....... 3. As the Reviewer's good advice, ....... Special thanks to you for your good ments. 20xx-xx-xx 国外审稿人是义务的，可以根据文章质量和自己的看法自由地提出意见和建议。国外审稿人绝大多数治学严谨，很注重reputation，可以说拿信誉当生 命。当他们接到审稿要求时，如果很忙或不懂你的专业或领域，他们会decline。但只要答应审稿，一般都是尽职尽责的完成审稿任务。因此，当你接到审稿 人的意见时，首先要摆正心态，保持冷静。不要用偏见的心态去断定审稿人有偏见、歧视。做研究的确很辛苦，发表文章也确实很不容易。但审稿人同 样也很辛苦，也很不容易。他们认认真真地阅读你的文章，给你提出中肯的意见，甚至很好的建议。如果还被你措辞强硬的怪罪一阵，换着谁也会生气。要知道，找 理由拒绝一篇文章并不是一件很难的事情。因此，这个时候，你一定要好好的静下心来，好好分析sci论文发表审稿人的意见，找出问题的所在。 1.所有问题必须逐条回答；2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验；3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由；4。对于你不认同的意见，也要委婉有技巧地回答，做到有理有据有节；5. 审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并加以讨论。...>> 问题四：论文审稿意见怎么写 我以前的博士论文，评阅人就是根据我论文里的摘要写的，精炼一下就OK了。评阅书里面应该有自己写的创新点，你可以参照写一下。leonshane(站内联系TA)首先对这篇论文进行简单概括，指出其主要线索：研究目标、方法、意义、创新等，然后指出一两个最大的问题，如果其问题的确是致命的话，那么久建议修改。 你写完你导师会帮你把关的，如果他不看，建议你申请换导师。。。shuoyeb(站内联系TA)一、概况评价项目：论文的创新性成果 论文的学术价值及应用价值 论文反映出作者的基础理论和专门知识水平论文写作论文总体评价 二、综合所有评阅人对论文的学术评语 （选题的意义，论文的创新性成果，学术价值及应用价值，实验结果和计算数据的合理性及可靠性等）……三、论文中存在的问题、不足及意见或建议 1. 评议人认为第*章第*节****中有****的问题*****。 2. ……lbh535(站内联系TA)评审意见应点面结合。面就是总体概况，而点则至少体现评阅人有没有仔细看内容。现在好多论文评审一审就是一大批，特别是社会科学方面的，评阅意见都写些泛泛而谈的东西，感觉评阅人就没太仔细看。qiuqu_200212(站内联系TA)建议答辩，然后简单写些评语即可。k10001(站内联系TA)还有一段八股：论文表明，***在所研究领域掌握了坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识，具备了（很强的）独立从事科学研究工作的能力，论文（具有创新性，）达到了博士论文学术水平。建议组织博士学位论文答辩。nono2009(站内联系TA)评阅表中有提示的，按提示要求的几项内容写评阅意见即可。songjm12(站内联系TA)好好阅读评审书前两页要求部分 写好评语就行了yuffey(站内联系TA)研究问题清晰不，研究目标明确不，方法得当不，结果明显不？ 工作量饱满不，内容充实不？等等 最好的方法是，找个以前的博士论文，抄写抄写。八股文~~ 问题五：sci怎么回复审稿意见 小木虫 问: sci投稿，四个审稿人，两个提了问题，两个改的格式，一个在原文上改，直接发的pdf，估计修改的有一百多处吧，另一个提出第几页第几行改什么等等，编辑要求在修订模式下修改原文，我还需要一一回复修改格式的审稿人么，如何回复他修改的格式呢，他没有提问题，只帮我改了格式。 答: 原则上不用~ 既然在修订模式下进行~ 就一次到位~ 问题六：sci审稿意见回复写在一封信里吗 需要啊~ 而且最好有一个word文档逐条去回复审稿人的意见以及你是如何修改的，并且在修改稿里面用不同的颜色标注出你所修改的部分。 回复审稿意见一定要认真。谦虚这方面，你可以从他提的问题去判断审稿人的水平。如果提的问题明显外行，可以强势一些。不是说每个问题都要修改，但是每个问题都要回应。 问题七：大修审稿意见，重金求教如何回复 投稿Energy，35天后返回修改，给的大修，求教有经验的虫友如何回复审稿意见比较好。另外，为什么附件里只有一个人的审稿人意见？Dear***, The review of this paper is now plete, and I am including the Reviewers' reports (directly at the end of this email and sometimes as attachments). As you can see, one Reviewer remends rejection, and the others remend possible reconsideration after major revisions. If you are able to revise the manuscript thoroughly in response to the Reviewers' ments, I believe that it would be suitable for second review. I should add that, in view of the strong critici *** s, anything but a thorough response and revision would just be an unfortunate waste of time. Once you have revised the paper accordingly, please submit with it a note describing in detail your response to these ments and a separate copy of the revised paper marked up to indicate where the revisions were made. NOTE: Upon submitting your revised manuscript, please upload the source files for your article. For additional details regarding acceptable file formats, please refer to the Guide for Authors at: elsevier/...uthors When submitting your revised paper, we ask that you include the following items: Manuscript and Figure Source Files (mandatory) We cannot acmodate PDF manuscript files for production purposes. We also ask that when submitting your revision you follow the journal fo......>> 问题八：如何回复编辑和审稿人 回复审稿人的格式很简单，先感谢审稿人的宝贵意见，接着说已经按照要求修改过了，然后就是修改的明细，通常是一问一答，先是审稿人的意见，然后是自己的回答。 问题九：工科类文章审稿意见怎么写 英文 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 问题十：论文接收 英文审稿意见 怎么写 ①正确性：论点的说服力根植于对客观事物的正确反映，而这又取决于作者的立场、观点、态度、方法是否正确，如果论点本身不正确，甚至是荒谬的，再怎么论证也不能说服人。因此，论点正确是论文的最起码的要求。 ②鲜明性：赞成什么、反对什么，要非常鲜明，千万不能模棱两可，含糊不清。 ③新颖性：论点应该尽可能新颖、深刻，能超出他人的见解，不是重复他人的老生常谈，也不是无关痛痒、流于一般的泛泛而谈，应该尽可能独特、新颖。

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。