-解冻
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
< br>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
hy
pothesis
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
< br>8
、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写
literatu
re review:
The topic is novel but the
application proposed is not so novel.
9
、对
claim,
< br>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
for
Authors
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
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<
/p>
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），
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！
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
XXX
。
。
。
。
。
。
。
。
。
。
。
i
t
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
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
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<
/p>
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:
I
think
the
word
should
be
better
instead
of
here.
Second, the
XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference
between three
（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，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<
/p>
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