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(5页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
![一些英文审稿意见的模板.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-3/29/964c5c36-157c-43d6-936d-73cd6ef63262/964c5c36-157c-43d6-936d-73cd6ef632621.gif)
一些英文审稿意见的模板
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。
ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.
2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.
Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.
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.
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.Thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.
TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.
PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit?
thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.
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,
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)
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).
(很多人不会写这个地方,大家多学习啊)
2.WhendiscussingXRDdataXXXauthors
-statethatXXXXX
-statethatXXXX
-Thisusuallyhappenswithincreasingsinteringtime,butarethereanydatatopresent,density,particlesize?
(很多人用XRD,结果图放上去就什么都不管了,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,大家努力啊)
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,当然审稿人也有他的道理)
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.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)
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)