英文论文审稿意见怎么写

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 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. 本文来自CSDN博客，转载请标明出处： 老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见 Ms. Ref. No.: ****** Title: ****** Materials Science and Engineering Dear Dr. ******, Reviewers have now commented on your p aper. 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 来源:.htm 这是一篇全过程我均比较了解的投稿，稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的，中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某核心期刊，并很快得到发表。其时我作为审稿人之一，除了提出一些修改建议外，还特建议了5篇应增加的参考文献，该文正式发表时共计有参考文献25篇。 作者或许看到审稿意见还不错，因此决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿。几经修改和补充后，请一位英文“功底"较好的中国人翻译，投稿后约3周，便返回了三份审稿意见。 从英文刊的反馈意见看，这篇稿件中最严重的问题是文献综述和引用不够，其次是语言表达方面的欠缺，此外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的不足。 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 … (. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, . 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.

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。