评语大全之英语翻译评语.docx
《评语大全之英语翻译评语.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《评语大全之英语翻译评语.docx(17页珍藏版)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
评语大全之英语翻译评语
英语翻译评语
【篇一:
英文论文审稿意见汇总】
英文论文审稿意见汇总
以下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。
itisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalenglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoenglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.
2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
◆ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalme
thodsusedinthestudy.
◆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
8、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.ihaveattachedapdffilewithinstructionsforauthorswhichshowsexamples.◆beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedand
formatted.ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenundertheinstructionsandformsbuttoninheupperright-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-versedi
nenglishorwhosenativelanguageisenglish.
◆pleasehavesomeonecompetentintheenglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?
◆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,reviewerscommentsareappendedbelow.
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。
附2:
英文审稿意见(略有删节)
reviewer:
1
therearemanythingswrongwiththispaper.
theenglishisverybad.althoughthemeaningisbyandlargeclear,nottoomanysentencesarecorrect.
theliteraturereviewispoor.thepaperisriddledwithassertionsandclaimsthatshouldbesupportedbyreferences.
thepaperreadsasanadvertisementforxxx.itisnotclearthattheauthorisindependentofxxx.
theaamodelofxxxisnotasinnovativeastheauthorclaims.therearenowmanyxxthatfollowthismodel(americangeophysicalunion,forexample),andtheauthorshouldsurveythesemodeltoseewhichonefirstintroducedtheelementsofthexxxmodel.
themodelisalsonotassuccessfulastheauthorclaims.……
overall,thepresentationandthecontentsofthepapercanonlymeanthatirejectthatthepaperberejected.
reviewer:
2
thearetwomajorproblemswiththispaper:
(1)itismissingthecontextof(andcitationsto)whatisnowknowasthetwo-sidedmarketliteratureincludingthatdirectlyrelatedto…(e.g.braunstein,jasis1977;economideskatsanakas,mgt.sci.,2006;mccabesnyder,b.e.jeconanalysis,2007).
(2)thewritingqualityisnotuptothestandardofausscholarlyjournal.reviewer:
3
1.theauthorshouldaccentuatehiscontributionsinthismanuscript.
2.itlacksanalyticalmethodologiestosupportauthor’sdiscoveries.
3.descriptionstylemateriallikethismanuscriptrequiresstructuredtablesfiguresforbetterpresentations.
ourjpcapaperwerepeerreviewedbytworeviewers,andtheircommentsareasfollows:
thecommentsbythefirstreviewer
editor:
michaela.duncan
reviewer:
68
manuscriptnumber:
jp067440i
manuscripttitle:
restrictedgeometryoptimization,adifferentwaytoestimatestabilizationenergiesforaromaticmoleculesofvarioustypes
correspondingauthor:
yu
recommendation:
thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.
additionalcomments:
inthepresentworktheauthorsintroduceanewenergy-basedaromaticitymeasure.referredasrestrictedgeometryoptimization,theextra
stabilizationenergy(ese)iscalculatedbymeansofanenergyschemeinwhichthedifferentdoublebondsarelocalized.thismethodologyisappliedtodifferentsetsofaromaticsystems,andtheresultsarecomparedtopreviousalreadyexistingschemes.thisprocedureseemstoworkbetterthanpreviousones,howeveritmustbeunderlinedthatwithamuchgreatercomplexity.itavoidshavingtochooseareferencestructure,anditisworthnoticingthatbenzeneappearstobethemostaromaticsystem.thusthemethodpresentedmightmeananewcontributiontothedifferentaromacitycriteria,howeverbeforeacceptanceforpublicationiwouldrecommendimportantchangestobetakenintoaccountinthemanuscript.
thenewmethodusedisnotpresentedinacomprehensibleway.inthesecondparagraphoftheintroductiontheauthorsshouldalreadydescribeit,andnotfirstpresentingtheresultsforbenzeneandnotgoingintothemethodtillthesecondsection.theformulasusedmustbedescribedpreciselyaswell.soiwould
recommendthatbeforeacceptancethemanuscriptshouldberewritteninordertomakeitmorecomprehensiblenotonlytophysicalchemistsbutalsotothe
experimentalchemicalcommunity,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.
【篇二:
翻译短篇点评】
1
曾几何时,人们还对“80后”评头论足,或感叹他们是“垮掉的一代”,或认为他们很嫩很青涩。
如今,“80后”已经长大了,他们中将首次出现30岁群体。
《论语》说,“三十而立”,而我们却无法把“80后”与而立画上等号。
调查显示,五成以上80后的职场人在工作上力不从心;近五成调查对象无房无车,且处于未婚状态。
“80后”三十难立也不必沮丧,有时需要励志一下,因为要改变自己的命运,最终靠的是自己,多一些意气风发,多一些愈挫愈勇的斗志,少一些埋怨,少一些迷失。
毕竟,“80后”也不乏成功人士,他们筚路蓝缕,走出了自己的一片天。
参考译文:
therewasatimewhenpeoplelovedtocarpandcavilatthepost-1980sgeneration,eitherreferringtothemasthe“beatgeneration”orclaimingtheywerewetbehindtheears.nowthesepost-1980scohortshavegrownup,someofwhomhavejustturnedthirty.analectsofconfuciussaidthat“oneshouldplanthisfeetuponthegroundattheageofthirty”.yetitishardforustoequatethe20or30-somethingswithbeingwell-established.statisticallyspeaking,morethanfi