一些英文审稿意见的模板.docx

一些英文审稿意见的模板.docx

《一些英文审稿意见的模板.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《一些英文审稿意见的模板.docx（7页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

一些英文审稿意见的模板

之马矢奏春创作

创作时间：

二零二一年六月三十日

最近在审一篇英文稿,第一次做这个工作,还有点不知如何表达.幸亏遇上我的童贞审稿,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.

ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.

2、未解释研究方法或解释不充沛.

Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.

Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.

3、对研究设计的rationale:

Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.

4、夸张地陈说结论/夸年夜功效/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/界说概念：

Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?

7、对研究问题的界说：

Trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,

writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充沛地写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（重视水平）：

Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples.

Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted.Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"InstructionsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.

12、语言问题（呈现最多的问题）：

有关语言的审稿人意见：

ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.

Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.

Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.Thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.

TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.

PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit?

thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.

作为审稿人,本不应该把编纂部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊）,

但我觉得有些意见值得广年夜投稿人注意,

就贴出来吧,固然,有关审稿人的名字,Email,文章题名信息等就都删除,

以免造成不需要的麻烦！

希望朋友们多评价,其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点年夜家！

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立异的,

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！

登录到编纂部网页一看,一个文章竟然有六个审稿人,

详细看了下打的分数,60分年夜修,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）

Reviewer4

ReviewerRecommendationTerm:

Reject

OverallReviewerManuscriptRating:

25

CommentstoEditor:

Reviewersarerequiredtoentertheirname,affiliationande-mailaddressbelow.Pleasenotethisisforadministrativepurposesandwillnotbeseenbytheauthor.

Title（Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）:

Prof.

Name:

XXX

Affiliation:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Manuscriptentitled"SynthesisXXX..........."ithasbeensynthesizedwithanumberofdifferentmethodsandinavarietyofforms.Thismanuscriptdoesnotbringanynewknowledgeordataonmaterialspropertyandthereforeonlycontributionmaybeinnovelpreparationmethod,stillthispointisnotelaboratedproperly（seeRemark1）.Presentationandwritingisratherpoor;thereareseveralstatementsnotsupportedwithdata（forsomeseeRemarks2）andevensomeflaws（seeRemark3）.ForthesereasonsIsuggesttorejectpaperinthepresentform.

1.ThepaperdescribesanewmethodforpreparationofXXXX,but:

-thenewmethodhastobecomparedwithothermethodsforpreparationofXXXXpowders（INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion）,（通常的写作格式,审稿人实际上很在意的）

-ithastobedescribedwhythismethodisbetterordifferentfromothermethods,（INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion）,

-ithastobeaddedinthemanuscriptwhatkindofXXXXXXbyothermethodscomparedtothisnovelone（INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion）,

-ithastobeoutlinedwhatisthebenefitofthismethod（ABSTRACT,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION,CONCLUSIONS）.

（很多人不会写这个处所,年夜家多学习啊）

2.WhendiscussingXRDdataXXXauthors

-statethatXXXXX

-statethatXXXX

-Thisusuallyhappenswithincreasingsinteringtime,butarethereanydatatopresent,density,particlesize?

（很多人用XRD,结果图放上去就什么都不论了,这是不应该的）

3.Whendiscussingluminescencemeasurementsauthorswrite"XXXXXIfthereissecondharmonicinexcitationbeamitwillstaytherenomatterwhattypeofmaterialoneinvestigates

（研究了什么）

4.英语写作要提高

（这条很多人的软肋,年夜家努力啊）

Reviewer5

ReviewerRecommendationTerm:

Reject

OverallReviewerManuscriptRating:

N/A

CommentstoEditor:

Title（Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.

Name:

（国人）

Affiliation:

XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx

Deareditor:

Thankyouforinvitingmetoevaluatethearticletitled"XXXX“.Inthispaper,theauthorsinvestigatedtheinfluencesofsinteringconditiononthecrystalstructureandXXXXXX,However,itisdifficultforustounderstandthemanuscriptbecauseofpoorEnglishbeingused.

Thetextisnotwellarrangedandthelogicisnotclear.ExceptEnglishwriting,therearemanymistakesinthemanuscriptandtheexperimentalresultsdon'tshowgoodandnewresults.SoIrecommendtoyouthatthismanuscriptcannotbeaccepted.Thefollowingarethequestionsandsomemistakesinthismanuscript:

（看看总体评价,不达标,很多人被这样郁闷了,固然审稿人也有他的事理）

1.TheXXXXXXX.However,thiskindmaterialhadbeeninvestigatedsince1997asmentionedintheauthor'smanuscript,andsimilarworkshadbeenpublishedinsimilarjournals.Whatarethenovelfindingsinthepresentwork?

Thesynthesismethodandluminescencepropertiesreportedinthismanuscriptdidn'tsupplyenoughevidencetosupporttheprimenoveltystatement.

（这位作者好猛,竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志,而且没有新的立异！

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,运气欠好审稿人也是国人,敢情曾看过你的文章,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.Inpage5,theauthormentionedthat:

"XXXXBasedonourknowledge,"sintering"describestheprocesswhenthepowdersbecomeceramics.So,Ithinktheword"synthesis"shouldbebetterinsteadof"sintering"here.Second,theXRDpatternsdidn'tshowobviousdifferencebetweenthree"sintering"temperaturesof700,800and900?

C.

（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了,虫子们可别犯啊）

3.AlsointhepageX,theauthormentionedthat:

XXX..........However,theauthordidn'tsupplythemorphologiesofparticlesatdifferentsynthesizingtemperatures.Whataretheexperimentalresultsorthereferenceswhichsupporttheauthor'sconclusionthattheXXXXpropertieswouldbeinfluencedbytheparticlesize?

（作者仍在瞎说,这个问题我也指出了,不单我还是看着国人的份上让修改,添加很多工具,说实话,文章看的很累很累）

4.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXHowever,tomyknowledge,afterthemilling,theparticlessizewillbedecreasedexactly,buthowandwhattodestroythehoststructure?

（虫子们自己注意）

5.XXXontheverticalaxisoftheXRDpatternswasmeaningless,becauseauthoraddseveralpatternsinonefigure.Itisobviousthatthesespectraarenotmeasuredbyordinarymethods.（都是老问题,不说了）

创作时间：

二零二一年六月三十日