英文审稿意见Word文件下载.docx

1、 furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： the conclusions are overstated. for example, the study did not show if the side effects fr

2、om initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： a hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： what was the rationale for the film/sbf volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to

3、 define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: the topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如ab的证明，verification:there is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement

4、on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： mnq is easier than the primitive pnqs, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： in addition, the list of references is not in our style. it is close but not completely correct. i have attached a pdf file with instructions for authors which shows examples. before submitting a revis

5、ion be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. if you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the instructions and forms button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen. 12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）： 有关语言的审稿人意见： the authors must have their wor

6、k reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences. as presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. there are problems with sentence

7、 structure, verb tense, and clause construction. the english of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. we strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in english or whose native language is english. please have someone competent in the english langua

8、ge and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ? the quality of english needs improving. 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

9、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） reviewer 4 reviewer recommendation term: reject overall reviewer manuscript rating: 25 comments to editor: reviewers are required

10、to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author. title （prof./dr./mr./mrs.）: prof. name: xxx affiliation: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx manuscript entitled synthesis xxx。 it has been synthesized with a number

11、 of different methods and in a variety of forms. this manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly （see remark 1）. presentation and writing is rather poor; the

12、re are several statements not supported with data （for some see remarks 2） and even some flaws （see remark 3）. for these reasons i suggest to reject paper in the present form. 1. the paper describes a new method for preparation of xxxx, but: - the new method has to be compared with other methods for

13、 preparation of xxxxpowders （introduction - literature data, results and discussion - discussion）,（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的） - it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, （introduction - literature data, results and discussion - discussion）, - it has to be added in th

14、e manuscript what kind of xxxxxx by other methods compared to this novel one （introduction - literature data, results and discussion - discussion）, - it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method （abstract, results and discussion, conclusions）. （很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊） 2. when discussing xrd d

15、ata xxxauthors- state that xxxxx - state that xxxx - this usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size? （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. when discussing luminescence measurements authors write xxxxxif there is second harmonic in excitatio

16、n beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates! （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） reviewer 5 n/a title （prof./dr./mr./mrs.）rof.（国人） xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx dear editor: thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled xxxx“. in this paper, the authors inve

17、stigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and xxxxxx， however, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor english being used. the text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. except english writing, there are many mistakes in the manusc

18、ript and the experimental results dont show good and new results. so i recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. the following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript: （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, this kind material had been investigated

19、since 1997 as mentioned in the authors manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. what are the novel findings in the present work? the synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didnt supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty stateme

20、nt. （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. in page 5, the author mentioned that: xxxx based on our knowledge, sintering describes the process when the powders become cerami

21、cs. so, i think the word synthesis should be better instead of sintering here. second, the xrd patterns didnt show obvious difference between three sintering temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 ?c. （作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊） 3. also in the page x, the author mentioned that: xxx。 however, the author didnt s

22、upply the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. what are the experimental results or the references which support the authors conclusion that the xxxx properties would be influenced by the particle size? （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. xxxxxxxxxx

23、xxxxx however, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure? （虫子们自己注意） 5. xxx on the vertical axis of the xrd patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure. it is obvious that these spec

24、tra are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了） 好东西 原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博 一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。【篇二：英文审稿意见汇总】 in general, there is a lack

25、of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. the conclusions are overstated. for example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid wit

26、h the polymer formulation. there is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.mnq is easier than the primitive pnqs, how to prove that. in addition, the list of references is not in our style. it is close but not completely correct. i have attached a pdf file with instructions for authors which shows examples. before submitting a revision be sure that your materi