审稿论文评语word范文模板 12页Word下载.docx

审稿论文评语word范文模板 12页Word下载.docx

《审稿论文评语word范文模板 12页Word下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《审稿论文评语word范文模板 12页Word下载.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

3、对于研究设计的rationale:

Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：

Theconclusionsareoverstated.Forexample,thestudydidnotshow

ifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.

5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：

Ahypothesisneedstobepresented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：

Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?

7、对研究问题的定义：

Trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,

writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literaturereview:

Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.

9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:

Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.

10、严谨度问题：

MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.

11、格式（重视程度）：

◆Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"

InstructionsforAuthors"

whichshowsexamples.◆Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedand

formatted.Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"

InstructionsandForms"

buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.

12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：

有关语言的审稿人意见：

◆ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.◆Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;

onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.

◆Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.Therearepro

blemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.

◆TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedi

nEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.

◆PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?

◆thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.

来自编辑的鼓励：

Encouragementfromreviewers:

◆Iwouldbeverygladtore-reviewthepaperingreaterdepthonceithasbe

eneditedbecausethesubjectisinteresting.

◆Thereiscontinuedinterestinyourmanuscripttitled"

……"

whichyousubm

ittedtotheJournalofBiomedicalMaterialsResearch:

PartB-AppliedBiomat

erials.

◆TheSubmissionhasbeengreatlyimprovedandisworthyofpublication.

老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见

Ms.Ref.No.:

******

Title:

MaterialsScienceandEngineering

DearDr.******,

Reviewershavenowcommentedonyourpaper.Youwillseethattheyareadvisingthatyoureviseyourmanuscript.Ifyouarepreparedtoundertaketheworkrequired,Iwouldbepleasedtoreconsidermydecision.

Foryourguidance,reviewers'

commentsareappendedbelow.

Reviewer#1:

Thisworkproposesanextensivereviewonmicromulsion-basedmethodsforthesynthesisofAgnanoparticles.Assuch,thematterisofinterest,howeverthepapersuffersfortwoseriouslimits:

1）theoverallqualityoftheEnglishlanguageisratherpoor;

2）someFiguresmustbeselectedfrompreviousliteraturetodiscussalsothesynthesisofanisotropicallyshapedAgnanoparticles（thereareseveralexamplespublished）,whichhasbeenlargelyoverlookedthroughoutthepaper.;

Oncetheaboveconcernsarefullyaddressed,themanuscriptcouldbeacceptedforpublicationinthisjournal

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

Therearemanythingswrongwiththispaper.

TheEnglishisverybad.Althoughthemeaningisbyandlargeclear,nottoomanysentencesarecorrect.

Theliteraturereviewispoor.Thepaperisriddledwithassertionsandclaimsthatshouldbesupportedbyreferences.

ThepaperreadsasanadvertisementforXXX.ItisnotclearthattheauthorisindependentofXXX.

TheAAmodelofXXXisnotasinnovativeastheauthorclaims.TherearenowmanyXXthatfollowthismodel（AmericanGeophysicalUnion,forexample）,andtheauthorshouldsurveythesemodeltoseewhichonefirstintroducedtheelementsoftheXXXmodel.

Themodelisalsonotassuccessfulastheauthorclaims.……

Overall,thepresentationandthecontentsofthepapercanonlymeanthatIrejectthatthepaperberejected.

2

Thearetwomajorproblemswiththispaper:

（1）Itismissingthecontextof（andcitationsto）whatisnowknowasthe"

two-sided"

marketliteratureincludingthatdirectlyrelatedto…（e.g.Braunstein,JASIS1977;

Economides&

Katsanakas,Mgt.Sci.,201X;

McCabe&

Snyder,B.E.JEconAnalysis,201X）.

（2）ThewritingqualityisnotuptothestandardofaUSscholarlyjournal.Reviewer:

3

1.Theauthorshouldaccentuatehiscontributionsinthismanuscript.

2.Itlacksanalyticalmethodologiestosupportauthor’sdiscoveries.

3.Descriptionstylemateriallikethismanuscriptrequiresstructuredtables&

figuresforbetterpresentations.

OurJPCApaperwerepeerreviewedbytworeviewers,andtheircommentsareasfollows:

TheCommentsbytheFirstReviewer

Editor:

MichaelA.Duncan

68

ManuscriptNumber:

jp067440i

ManuscriptTitle:

RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypes

CorrespondingAuthor:

Yu

Recommendation:

Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.

AdditionalComments:

Inthepresentworktheauthorsintroduceanewenergy-basedaromaticitymeasure.Referredasrestrictedgeometryoptimization,theextra（来自:

WWw.:

审稿论文评语）

stabilizationenergy（ESE）iscalculatedbymeansofanenergyschemeinwhichthedifferentdoublebondsarelocalized.Thismethodologyisappliedtodifferentsetsofaromaticsystems,andtheresultsarecomparedtopreviousalreadyexistingschemes.Thisprocedureseemstoworkbetterthanpreviousones,howeveritmustbeunderlinedthatwithamuchgreatercomplexity.Itavoidshavingtochooseareferencestructure,anditisworthnoticingthatbenzeneappearstobethemostaromaticsystem.Thusthemethodpresentedmightmeananewcontributiontothedifferentaromacitycriteria,howeverbeforeacceptanceforpublicationIwouldrecommendimportantchangestobetakenintoaccountinthemanuscript.

Thenewmethodusedisnotpresentedinacomprehensibleway.InthesecondparagraphoftheIntroductiontheauthorsshouldalreadydescribeit,andnotfirstpresentingtheresultsforbenzeneandnotgoingintothemethodtillthesecondsection.Theformulasusedmustbedescribedpreciselyaswell.SoIwould

recommendthatbeforeacceptancethemanuscriptshouldberewritteninordertomakeitmorecomprehensiblenotonlytophysicalchemistsbutalsotothe

experimentalchemicalcommunity,andatthesametimetoimprovetheEnglishused.Otherminorpointsare:

-FirstlineofIntroduction:

aromaticityisoneofthemostimportantconceptsinorganicchemistry,butmostoforganiccompoundsarenotaromatic.-Introduction,line4:

noticethatonlyenergeticwaysofevaluatingaromaticityarementioned,howevergeometry-based（HOMA）,magnetic-based（NICS）andelectronic-based（SCI,PDI）methodsarealsoimportant,andthispointshouldbepointedout.-Section3.1,lastlineoffirstparagraph:

isB3LYPchosenjustbecauseitgivessimilarresultstoHFandMP2?

Thisshouldbepointedoutinthemanuscript.-Enlargedescriptioninpoint3.4.1bygoingdeeperintothedatainFigure8.

篇二：

论文审稿意见模板

ReviewForm

SectionI.GeneralInformation

A.Overview1.ReaderInterest.Whichcategorydescribesthismanuscript?

*Practice/Application/CaseStudy/ExperienceReportResearch/Technology

Survey/Tutorial/How-To2.Howrelevantisthismanuscripttothereadersofthisperiodical?

Pleaseexplainyourrating.*VeryRelevantRelevantInteresting-butnotveryrelevant

Irrelevant

Comment

B.Content

1.Pleaseexplainhowthismanuscriptadvancesthisfieldofresearchand/orcontributessomethingnewtotheliterature.*

2.Isthemanuscripttechnicallysound?

Pleaseexplainyouranswer.*YesAppearstobe-butdidn'

tcheckcompletelyPartially

No

C.Presentation1.Arethetitle,abstract,and