一些英文审稿意见及回复的

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，

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

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 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

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

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！

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），

25

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！

< br>

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

（

Pr of./Dr./Mr./Mrs.

）

: Prof.

Name: XXX

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Manuscript entitled

。。。。。。。。。。。

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 maybe 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 somesee Remarks 2) and even someflaws (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 XXXXXXby 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).

(< /p>

很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊

)

2.

When discussing XRD data XXXauthors

- 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.

Whendiscussing luminescence measurements authors write

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）

Affiliati on: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx

Dear editor:

Thank you for inviting meto evaluate the article titled

“

. 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！