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
英文论文审稿意见汇总
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。
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
Authorsproposearestrictedgeometryoptimizationtechniquesubjecttopiorbitalinteractionconstraintsasanewmeasureofaromaticity.Theapproachisinterestingandhascertainmerits.Mymainobjectionisthatthemanuscriptisdifficulttoreadandunderstand,mainlybecauseofpoorEnglish.Asubstantialrevisioninthisrespectwouldbebeneficiary.
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:
Thisismypersonaladditiontotheautomaticallygeneratedemaildisplayed
above.Yourmanuscripthasnowbeenreadbythreeknowledgeablereviewers,
eachofwhomhasprovidedthoughtfulanddetailedcommentsonthepaper.The
mainpointsofthereviewsareself-explanatoryandmostlyconsistentacross
thereviews.Yourpresentationneedstobereworkedsubstantially,andthe
reviewsgiveyoumanysuggestionsfordoingso.Clearly,theintroduction
needstobemuchmoreconciseandfocusedonthemainquestionsyoupropose
toanswer,andwhythesequestionsareimportant.Therationaleforselectingthisunusualconditionmustbeclear.Yourdiscussionshouldfocusonhowthequestionshavebeenansweredandwhattheymean.Theresultssectionisheavilydependentonstatisticalanalysesthatdidnotsatisfythereviewers.Thefiguresandtablescouldbeimprovedandperhapsconsolidated.Themethodscouldbeshortened.Forexample,Ithinkreaders
wouldtakeyourwordthatthesewerenonsensesentences,orperhapsyoucouldsi
升级会员 