英文论文审稿意见英文版.docx

资源描述

英文论文审稿意见英文版.docx

《英文论文审稿意见英文版.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英文论文审稿意见英文版.docx（19页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

英文论文审稿意见英文版.docx

英文论文审稿意见英文版

英文论文审稿意见汇总

1、目标和结果不清晰。

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

&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,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthatare

givenunderthe"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-versedinEnglishorwhosenativeIanguageisEnglish.

.PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishIanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?

.thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.

来自编辑的鼓励：

Encouragementfromreviewers:

.Iwouldbeverygladtore-reviewthepaperingreaterdepthonceithasbeeneditedbecausethesubjectisinteresting.

.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.

Foryourguidanee,reviewers'commentsareappendedbelow.

Reviewer#1:

Thisworkproposesanextensivereviewonmicromulsion-basedmethodsforthesynthesisofAgnanoparticles.Assuch,thematterisofinterest,howeverthepapersuffersfortwoseriouslimits:

1）theoverallqualityoftheEnglishIanguageisratherpoor;

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

审稿意见一1

（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）

审稿意见一2

（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。

审稿意见一3

（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）

（数据）材料。

需要采用表格和图件形式展示

OurJPCApaperwerepeerreviewedbytworeviewers,andtheircommentsareasfollows:

TheCommentsbytheFirstReviewer

Editor:

MichaelA.Duncan

Reviewer:

ManuscriptNumber:

jp067440i

ManuscriptTitle:

RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypesCorrespondingAuthor:

Recommendation:

Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.

AdditionalComments:

Inthepresentworktheauthorsintroduceanew

energy-basedaromaticitymeasure.Referredasrestrictedgeometryoptimization,theextrastabilizationenergy（ESE）iscalculatedbymeansofanenergyschemeinwhichthedifferentdoublebondsarelocalized.Thismethodologyisappliedtodifferentsetsofaromaticsystems,andtheresultsarecomparedtopreviousalreadyexistingschemes.Thisprocedureseemstoworkbetterthanpreviousones,howeveritmustbeunderlinedthatwithamuchgreatercomplexity.Itavoidshavingtochoosearefereneestructure,anditisworthnoticingthatbenzeneappearstobethemostaromaticsystem.Thusthemethodpresentedmightmeananewcontributiontothedifferentaromacitycriteria,howeverbeforeacceptaneeforpublicationIwouldrecommendimportantchangestobetakenintoaccountinthemanuscript.

Thenewmethodusedisnotpresentedinacomprehensibleway.InthesecondparagraphoftheIntroductiontheauthorsshouldalreadydescribeit,andnotfirstpresentingtheresultsforbenzeneandnotgoingintothemethodtillthesecondsection.Theformulasusedmustbedescribedpreciselyaswell.SoIwouldrecommendthatbeforeacceptaneethemanuscriptshouldberewritteninordertomakeitmorecomprehensiblenotonlytophysicalchemistsbutalsototheexperimentalchemicalcommunity,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

*****************************************

TheCommentsbytheSecondReviewer

Editor:

MichaelA.Duncan

Reviewer:

ManuscriptNumber:

jp067440i

ManuscriptTitle:

RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWayto

EstimateStabilization

EnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypes

CorrespondingAuthor:

Recommendation:

Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.

AdditionalComments:

Commentsonthemanuscript"RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferent

WaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVarious

Types"byZhong-HengYu,PengBao

Authorsproposearestrictedgeometryoptimizationtechniquesubjecttopiorbitalinteractionconstraintsasanewmeasureofaromaticity.Theapproachisinterestingandhascertainmerits.Mymainobjectionisthatthemanuscript

isdifficulttoreadandunderstand,mainlybecauseofpoorEnglish.A

substantialrevisioninthisrespectwouldbebeneficiary.

各位：

新的恶战开始了。

投往JASA的文章没有被拒，但被批得很凶。

尽管如此，审稿人和编辑

还是给了我们一个修改和再被审的机会。

我们应当珍惜这个机会，不急不火。

我们首

先要有个修改的指导思想。

大家先看看审稿意见吧。

邮件原件

Manuscript#07-04147:

Editor'sComments:

Thisismypersonaladditiontotheautomaticallygeneratedemaildisplayedabove.Yourmanuscripthasnowbeenreadbythreeknowledgeablereviewers,eachofwhomhasprovidedthoughtfulanddetailedcommentsonthepaper.Themainpointsofthereviewsareself-explanatoryandmostlyconsistentacrossthereviews.Yourpresentationneedstobereworkedsubstantially,andthereviewsgiveyoumanysuggestionsfordoingso.Clearly,theintroductionneedstobemuchmoreconciseandfocusedonthemainquestionsyouproposetoanswer,andwhythesequestionsareimportant.Therationaleforselectingthisunusualconditionmustbeclear.Yourdiscussionshouldfocusonhowthequestionshavebeenansweredandwhattheymean.Theresultssectionisheavilydependentonstatisticalanalysesthatdidnotsatisfythereviewers.Thefiguresandtablescouldbeimprovedandperhapsconsolidated.Themethodscouldbeshortened.Forexample,Ithinkreaderswouldtakeyo

展开阅读全文