英文论文审稿意见汇总.docx
- 文档编号:3335990
- 上传时间:2022-11-21
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:30
- 大小:36.14KB
英文论文审稿意见汇总.docx
《英文论文审稿意见汇总.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《英文论文审稿意见汇总.docx(30页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总
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。
ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.
2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
◆Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalme
thodsusedinthestudy.
◆Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperiments
shouldbeprovided.
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:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.
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.
◆Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted. 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.Westr
onglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedi
nEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.
◆PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatte
rofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?
◆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.
Reviewer:
2
Thearetwomajorproblemswiththispaper:
(1)Itismissingthecontextof(andcitationsto)whatisnowknowasthe"two-sided"marketliteratureincludingthatdirectlyrelatedto…(e.g.Braunstein,JASIS1977;Economides&Katsanakas,Mgt.Sci.,2006;McCabe&Snyder,B.E.JEconAnalysis,2007).
(2)ThewritingqualityisnotuptothestandardofaUSscholarlyjournal.
Reviewer:
3
1.Theauthorshouldaccentuatehiscontributionsinthismanuscript.
2.Itlacksanalyticalmethodologiestosupportauthor’sdiscoveries.
3.Descriptionstylemateriallikethismanuscriptrequiresstructuredtables&figuresforbetterpresentations.
OurJPCApaperwerepeerreviewedbytworeviewers,andtheircommentsareasfollows:
TheCommentsbytheFirstReviewer
Editor:
MichaelA.Duncan
Reviewer:
68
ManuscriptNumber:
jp067440i
ManuscriptTitle:
RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypes
CorrespondingAuthor:
Yu
Recommendation:
Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.
AdditionalComments:
Inthepresentworktheauthorsintroduceanewenergy-basedaromaticitymeasure.Referredasrestrictedgeometryoptimization,theextrastabilizationenergy(ESE)iscalculatedbymeansofanenergyschemeinwhichthedifferentdoublebondsarelocalized.Thismethodologyisappliedtodifferentsetsofaromaticsystems,andtheresultsarecomparedtopreviousalreadyexistingschemes.Thisprocedureseemstoworkbetterthanpreviousones,howeveritmustbeunderlinedthatwithamuchgreatercomplexity.Itavoidshavingtochooseareferencestructure,anditisworthnoticingthatbenzeneappearstobethemostaromaticsystem.Thusthemethodpresentedmightmeananewcontributiontothedifferentaromacitycriteria,howeverbeforeacceptanceforpublicationIwouldrecommendimportantchangestobetakenintoaccountinthemanuscript.
Thenewmethodusedisnotpresentedinacomprehensibleway.InthesecondparagraphoftheIntroductiontheauthorsshouldalreadydescribeit,andnotfirstpresentingtheresultsforbenzeneandnotgoingintothemethodtillthesecondsection.Theformulasusedmustbedescribedpreciselyaswell.SoIwouldrecommendthatbeforeacceptancethemanuscriptshouldberewritteninordertomakeitmorecomprehensiblenotonlytophysicalchemistsbutalsototheexperimentalchemicalcommunity,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.
ReviewSentDate:
18-Dec-2006
*****************************************
TheCommentsbythe SecondReviewer
Editor:
MichaelA.Duncan
Reviewer:
67
ManuscriptNumber:
jp067440i
ManuscriptTitle:
RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilization
EnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypes
CorrespondingAuthor:
Yu
Recommendation:
Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.
AdditionalComments:
Commentsonthemanuscript"RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypes"byZhong-HengYu,PengBao
Authorsproposearestrictedgeometryoptimizationtechniquesubjecttopi
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 英文 论文 审稿 意见 汇总