一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】

一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】 最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知 如何 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给 他一个majorrevision后接收吧。呵呵 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第一文库网 editing by someonewith expertise in technical English editing paying particularattention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure sothat the goals and results of the study are clear to thereader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates andstatistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these variousexperiments should be provided. 1 3、对于研究 设计 领导形象设计圆作业设计ao工艺污水处理厂设计附属工程施工组织设计清扫机器人结构设计 的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the studydesign. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨: The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did notshow if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with thepolymer 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 sonovel. 9、对claim,如A,B的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm withpreviously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether thealgorithm is an improvement on previous work. 2 10、严谨度问题: MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、 格式 pdf格式笔记格式下载页码格式下载公文格式下载简报格式下载 (重视程度): In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It isclose 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 properlyprepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult theformatting nstructions to authors that are given under the”Instructions and Forms” button in he upper right-hand corner ofthe 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 someonewith expertise in technical English editing paying particularattention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure sothat the goals and results of the study are clear to thereader. The authors must have their work reviewed by a propertranslation/reviewing service before submission; only then can aproper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammaticaland/or spelling mistakes or are not 3 completesentences. As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. Thereare problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clauseconstruction. The English of your manuscript must be improved beforeresubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from acolleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language isEnglish. Please have someone competent in the English language and thesubject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it? the quality of English needs improving. 作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开(冒风险 啊)， 但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意， 就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名 信息等就都删除了， 以免造成不必要的麻烦～ 希望朋友们多评价，其他有 经验 班主任工作经验交流宣传工作经验交流材料优秀班主任经验交流小学课改经验典型材料房地产总经理管理经验 的审稿人能常来指点大家～ 国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志， 被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分～ 个人认为文章还是有一些创新的， 4 所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，(这个分正常应该足以发 表)，提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表～ 登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人， 详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分(我)， 25分拒，(好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力)，拒但没有打分 (另一国人审)，最后一个没有回来～ 两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的～ (括号斜体内容为我注解) Reviewer 4 Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25 Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name,affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is foradministrative purposes and will not be seen by the author. Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof. Name: XXX Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx Manuscript entitled “Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。” it has beensynthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety offorms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data onmaterials property and therefore only 5 contribution may be in novelpreparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly(see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there areseveral statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2)and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest toreject paper in the present form. 1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX,but: - the new method has to be compared with other methods forpreparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTSAND DISCUSSION - discussion),(通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的) - it has to be described why this method is better or differentfrom other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS ANDDISCUSSION - discussion), - it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by othermethods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data,RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion), - it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method(ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS). 6 (很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊) 2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors - state that XXXXX - state that XXXX - This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but arethere any data to present, density, particle size? (很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不 应该的) 3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write “XXXXXIfthere is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there nomatter what type of material one investigates!!! (研究了什么,,,) 4.英语写作要提高 (这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊) Reviewer 5 Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A Comments to Editor: Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof. Name:(国人) Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx 7 Dear editor: Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled “XXXX“. Inthis paper, the authors investigated the influences of sinteringcondition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it isdifficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poorEnglish being used. The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. ExceptEnglish writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and theexperimental results don’t show good and new results. So Irecommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. Thefollowing are the questions and some mistakes in thismanuscript: (看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审 稿人也有他的道理) 1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigatedsince 1997 as mentioned in the author’s manuscript, and similarworks had been published in similar journals. What are the novelfindings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescenceproperties reported in this manuscript didn’t supply enoughevidence to support the prime novelty statement. (这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了 8 一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新～ 朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络 时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的 文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审 稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，(呵呵，我97年刚上初一没 见到这个文章，哈哈)) 2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: “XXXX Based on ourknowledge, “sintering” describes the process when the powdersbecome ceramics. So, I think the word “synthesis” should be betterinstead of “sintering” here. Second, the XRD patterns didn’t showobvious difference between three “sintering” temperatures of 700,800 and 900 ?C. (作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊) 3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。However, the author didn’t supply the morphologies of particles atdifferent synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimentalresults or the references which support the author’s conclusionthat the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particlesize? (作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着 国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累 很累) 9 4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, theparticles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what todestroy the host structure? (虫子们自己注意) 5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless,because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obviousthat these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods.(都是老问题，不说了) 百度搜索“就爱阅读”,专业资料,生活学习,尽在就爱阅读网 92to.com,您的在线图 书 关于书的成语关于读书的排比句社区图书漂流公约怎么写关于读书的小报汉书pdf 馆 10