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（28页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿【2】看法汇总
1.目的和成果不清楚.
ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.
2.未说明研讨办法或说明不充分.
◆Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalme
thodsusedinthestudy.
◆Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperiments
shouldbeprovided.
3.对于研讨设计的rationale:
Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.
4.夸大地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：
Theconclusionsareoverstated. Forexample,thestudydidnotshow
ifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.
5.对hypothesis的清楚界定：
Ahypothesisneedstobepresented.
6.对某个概念或对象应用的rationale/界说概念：
Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?
7.对研讨问题的界说：
Trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,
writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem
8.若何凸现原创性以及若何充分地写literaturereview:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.
9.对claim,如A＞B的证实,verification:
Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.
10.严谨度问题：
MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.
11.格局（看重程度）：
◆Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples.
◆Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted. Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"InstructionsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.
12.说话问题（消失最多的问题）：
有关说话的审稿人看法：
◆ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.
◆Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.
◆Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal. Therearepro
blemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.
◆TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westr
onglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedi
nEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.
◆PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatte
rofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?
◆thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.
来自编辑的勉励：
Encouragementfromreviewers:
◆Iwouldbeverygladtore-reviewthepaperingreaterdepthonceithasbe
eneditedbecausethesubjectisinteresting.
◆Thereiscontinuedinterestinyourmanuscripttitled"……"whichyousubm
ittedtotheJournalofBiomedicalMaterialsResearch:
PartB-AppliedBiomat
erials.
◆TheSubmissionhasbeengreatlyimprovedandisworthyofpublication.
老外写的英文综述文章的审稿看法
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
这是一篇全进程我均比较懂得的投稿,稿件的内容我以为是相当不错的,中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某焦点期刊,并很快得到揭橥.当时我作为审稿人之一,除了提出一些修正建议外,还特建议了5篇应增长的参考文献,该文正式揭橥时共计有参考文献25篇.
作者或许看到审稿看法还不错,是以决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿.几经修正和补充后,请一位英文“功底"较好的中国人翻译,投稿后约3周,便返回了三份审稿看法.
从英文刊的反馈看法看,这篇稿件中最轻微的问题是文献综述和引用不够,其次是说话表达方面的欠缺,此外是论证进程和成果展现情势方面的不足.
感触：
一篇好的论文,从内容到情势都须要精雕细琢.附1：
中译审稿看法审稿看法—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,不雅点或论断应有文献支撑.
（3）论文读起来像是XXX的告白,不知道作者与XXX是否没有联系关系.
（4）该模式的创新性并非如作者所述,今朝有很多XX采取此模式（如美国地球物理学会）,作者应详加查询拜访并剖析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……（审稿人联合论文中的数据具体剖析）
审稿看法—2
（1）缺乏直接相干的文献引用（如…）.
（2）写作质量达不到美国粹术期刊的标准.
审稿看法—3
（1）作者应侧重指出指出本人的进献.
（2）缺乏支撑作者发明的办法学剖析.
（3）须要采用表格和图件情势展现（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.
列位：
新的恶战开端了.投往JASA的文章没有被拒,但被批得很凶.尽管如斯,审稿人和编辑
照样给了我们一个修正和再被审的机遇.我们应该珍爱这个机遇,不急不火.我们首
先要有个修正的指点思惟.大家先看看审稿看法吧.
-----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,orperhapsyoucouldsimplycitesomeother
升级会员 