一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】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major revision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。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar spelling and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. 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 from 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 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 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 revision 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It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar spelling and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. The authors must have their work 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 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 language 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 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 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 there 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 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 the 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 data 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 excitation 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 Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A Comments to Editor: Title Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.rof. Name:国人Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx Dear editor: Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled XXXX“. In this paper the authors investigated 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 manuscript 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 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 didntsupply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement. 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 ceramics. 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。