评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语.docx

评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语.docx

《评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语.docx（11页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语

英文审稿拒绝评语

【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：

英文审稿意见汇总】

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,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperiments

shouldbeprovided.

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

ifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbe