首先评价稿件的科学性，尽管一篇论文的结论是否正确，也许好几年后才能搞清楚。
但问题是论文需要现在就发表，因此要看其科学性是否正确，特别是推论（论证）的质量、科学原理和知识的运用。
其次要评价稿件的写作情况，表达是否清晰、准确、完整，这些问题一定要提出来；如果审稿人看起来费劲，更何况其他读者？当然不同作者的写作风格可有不同，倒也不必千篇一律。
给编辑的建议要反映出：（1）对稿件最终处理意见的初步看法，即接受还是退稿；（2）在做出上述决定之前，你认为需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇论文探讨的问题是令人关注的课题，想法也令人很感兴趣，但其科学性不够强，那么你就要提出如何改进其科学性的建议。
你可以提出正反两方面的看法，供编辑决定是否录用时参考。
决定是否接受还要考虑到期刊的发表率。
在很多情况下，审稿人的建议是“待定”，等待作者对提出的问题给予答复。
对于可能存在严重缺点的稿件，要特别注意给作者答复的机会；有时他们会很快将问题解决，有时问题并不一定能解决。
审稿意见要用文字描述，不能只打勾（ ）。
给编者的话（致编辑）包括3个部分，文字要精炼，一般不超过二三百字：（1）概要，用三四句话说明研究的主题、基本方法、主要发现，解读（释义）作者的主要结论。
这对于梳理审稿人的思路很重要，同时也让编辑能够更好地了解以下2部分提出的意见。
（2）主要评价和问题。
（3）建议，例如：本文提出了什么新的观点、有何新的发现、值得进一步修改，等等。
给作者的意见（致作者）要更加具体，字数更多一些。
基本原则是，审稿人发现的问题，必须对作者说清楚；不要给予表扬，因为稿件能被接受，作者就够高兴的了；避免指责，这完全没有必要，作者反而会认为审稿人轻视别人、失礼。
每一篇投稿都是同行长期工作的成果，对他们来说这意味着职称、学位、科研基金、成果、学术地位，或许还有奖金。
给作者的意见同样包括3个部分。
（1）概要同“致编辑”，作者可以获悉审稿人从其论文中看到了什么，有些可能是作者自己都想不到的，这有助于作者突出重点，如何准备回复或修改。
（2）主要评价和问题：逐条书写，要解释清楚，要有依据；不要只给予“定性”的陈述，例如不要笼统地说“对照组不恰当，”要具体指出问题和理由。
对于写作上的问题，审稿人有时也许会感到“生气”：文章没写好就投稿，太不礼貌了（甚至会说，太不严谨了）。
遇到写作问题，审稿人可具体罗列主要的几条，并提出修改建议。
对于实在太差的，要明确告诉作者请其上级（导师）或有经验的同事帮着修改。
（3）次要问题，例如冗余、符号使用不当、错别字等，审稿人一般会笼统地提及需要修改，但如果能按页码和分行逐一列出，作者肯定会对你的严谨态度和责任感表示敬佩。
英文论文审稿意见汇总以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。
12点无轻重主次之分。
每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。
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 areclear 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 re plicates and statistical me thods 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 showif 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 problem8、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A＞B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 previouswork.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 pro blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i n English or whose native language is English.◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte r of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?◆ the quality of English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be en edited because the subject is interesting.◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat erials.◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication。