Paper Review 写法

2021年2月6日发(作者：米米卡)

paper review

的一般写法

一篇

Paper Review

按照内容可以分为三个部分：

1

、这篇

P aper

的概况。谁写的？在哪儿写的？哪年发表的等等??

2

、这篇

Paper

< br>的内容。

3

、你对这篇

Paper

的看法。

详细点来说是这样的：

第一部分：文章概况

这部分是最为简单和公式化的，内容主要是文章的作者，作者所处的位置，文章的出处：会

< p>
议论文还是期刊，或者是网上的资料，文章的读者是哪些。如果有必要，可以在这部分加入

对文章整体的简略评价。

第二部分：文章内容

这部分也是比较 公式化的。因为每一篇合格的论文都会包含一下的几个部分：

ound

背景

m/hypothesis

问题

/

假设

on/argumentation

解决方案

< p>
/

论证

mental test/conclusion

实验

/

结论

把每个点用一句话来概括就可以了，要注意的是不必叙述每个细节，把文章的主线理清楚 就

可以了。

第三部分：你的看法

这

部分是最为重要的，

你的评价应该直接反映该篇文章对你的研究有何意义、

文章的强处以

及弱处。

你对文章的评价可以分为三层。

最高层 的是对文章的内容的评价，

例如方法是否新

< br>颖，解决的问题是否有意义，所用的实验步骤、实验对象是否合适，结论是否正确。第二层

是关于文章的结构和风格的，

如论述的组织是否合理，

论

证的过程有没有漏洞，

文章的段落

结构有没有问题等等。最底层的是关于文章的用词以及语法方面的评价，句子是否通顺， 词

语是否恰当，

有没有更好的表达方式等

等。

三层的重要性是递减的，

最上 面的那一层是最重

要的，这应该是你读文章的重点，也应该是你写

Review

的重点。

关于一些写

Review

的细节问题，可以查看 这篇出自

University of Massachusetts Lowell< /p>

的文章。里面列出了一些写

Review

的该注意的问题，不过比较凌乱。

此外，还有一点是需要注意的。写

Paper Review< /p>

要写得批判性，即

Critical

，可 是又不能

写成

Negative

的。< /p>

在我们评论别人文章的不足的时候，

我们应该在后面加上一些可能 的改进

意见。如果是纯粹的批判对自己或对别人的改进没有丝毫的帮助。

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Referee's report:

In

the

manuscript

the

authors

represent

the

comparison

of

several

equations

of

states

and

their

applications

to

some

alloys.

They

obtained

the

conclusion

that

the

socalled

Li equation has the best performance with the smallest fitting errors. I would

recommend

its

publication

in

its

proper

form,

however,

after

many

important

modifications.

1) The title "Four-Parameter Li Equation of state in Alloy" has to be

modified.

From

what

I

learned

from

this

manuscript,

the

authors

mainly

discussed

the

comparison

of

several

different

EOSs

and

their

accurancies.

I

would

suggest

that

th

e title is in such a form "Comparision of ....".

2) In abstract, the content has to be clarified.

A)

because

both

Li

and

4-parameter Birch- Murnaghan

EOSs

are

based on

the

four

parameters, I think that the

auothers need to show what is difference between these

two EOSs.

B)

I

can

not

understand

"when

the

fitting

energy

vs.

volume

points

are

scattered

in a wide scale or have a large number of data to fit". Does it mean that the

obtained energy-vs-volume curves are not smoothing? In addition, a large number of

data to fit should not be a problem for the application of various EOS. In terms of

my experiences, the large number of data is better to fit EOS.

C)

Two

sentences

"Moreover,

it

is

found

that

Li

equation

has

the

best

performance

among these exponential EOSs with the smallest fitting errors" and "The

further comparison of the fitting the pressure vs. volume points shows that Li

equation performs as the best one as well among the exponential EOSs." I am

feeling very sad for these two sentences. They mean the same sentence.

3)

English

has

to

be

polished

in

a

more

readable

way,

although

the

authors

are

Chinese

speakers.

I

would

suggest

that

the

authors

invite

some

persons

to

help

them

to

polish

the

languange.

In

addition,

many

setences

are

repeated

several

times

in

the

manuscript.

4) Page 3, in the second paragraph, the authors presented "Nevertheless, the

accuracy

at

ultra-high

pressure

is

remaining

disputed."

I

guess

that

the

author

should show something more on this sentence. It is not clear. Why does the accuracy

of these EOS remain disputed? Indeed, in the manuscript there are many similar

sentences which are needed to be clarified. Here, I would not list one by one.

Reviewer

#2:

In the

present manuscript, it was first

proposed that the equations

of