逼完整版一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

2021年1月24日发(作者：色偏)




















完美格式整理版












一些英文审稿意见的模板


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
cl aim,
如
A
＞
B
的证明，
verification:





















学习好帮手


















































完美格式整理版












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！






















学习好帮手


















































完美格式整理版












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）
，
2 5
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





















学习好帮手


















































完美格式整理版












- 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 don't 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
author's
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 didn't supply 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




















学习好帮手


















































完美格式整理版












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 didn't 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
。
。。
。
。
。
。
。
。
。

However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles at
different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results
or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX
properties would be influenced by the particle size?
（作者仍在瞎说，
这个问题我也指出了，
不光我还是看着国人的份上让 修改，
添
加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）

4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the
particles
size
will
be
decreased
exactly,
but
how
and
what
to
destroy
the
host structure?
（虫子们自己注意）

5. XXX on the vertical axis of
the XRD
patterns was meaningless,
because
author
add
several
patterns
in
one
figure.
It
is
obvious
that
these
spectra
are not measured by ordinary methods.
（都是老问题，不说了）

















好东西


原文地址：
对英文审稿意见的回复
作者：
海天奥博

一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，
投出去之后又是漫长的等待，
好容易收到编辑的回信，< br>得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。
这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人
就 显得尤为重要。
好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修
改从而拖延 发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审
稿人的策略和写回复信的格式 和技巧跟大家交流一下。























学习好帮手


















































完美格式整理版












首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后 ，编辑一般不会再提出自己
的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺 陷，至少
是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予
夺的大权。


第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一 件事情。审稿人意见
如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲 热
讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人
错拍了 就更不爽了。
尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，
看到一审结果是
major
而不 是
minor
本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一 个审
稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦）
，结果作者在回复中写到，
making a reference is not charity
！看 到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想
象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被 拒了，虽然后
来经编辑调解改成了
major revision
，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？


第三，合 理掌握修改和
argue
的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所
谓< br>argue
就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改
的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人
argue
。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、
对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，
一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。
而对于新意不足、
创新性不够这类根本没法改的，
还有诸如跟算法
A
，
B
，
C
，
D
做比较，
补充大 量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，
我们则要有理有据的
argue
。