英文审稿意见汇总

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

me

thods 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

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< /p>

claim,

如

A

＞

B

的证明，

verificati on:

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

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

pro

blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.

◆

The

English

of

your

manuscript

must

be

improved

before

resubmission. We str

ongly

suggest

that

you

obtain

assistance

from

a

colleague

who

is

well-versed i

n English or whose native language is English.

◆

Please

have

someone

competent

in

the

English

language

and

the

subject matte

r of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?

◆

the quality of English needs improving.

来自编辑的鼓励：

Encouragement from reviewers:

◆

I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it

has be

en edited because the subject is interesting.

◆

There

is

continued

interest

in

your

manuscript

titled

……

which

you subm

itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B

- Applied

Biomat

erials.

◆

The

Submission

has

been

greatly

improved

and

is

worthy

of

publication.

?

The

paper

is

very

annoying

to

read

as

it

is

riddled

with

grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore,

the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also,

the

experimental

study

is

shallow.

In

fact,

I

cant

figure

out

the

legends

as

it

is

too

small!

How

does

your

effort

compares

with

state-of-the-art?

?

The

experiment

is

the

major

problem

in

the

paper.

Not

only

the

dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is

impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the

author.

Furthermore,

almost

no

discussion

for

the

experimental

result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this result? Which

component is the most important? Any further improvement?

?

the

author

should

concentrated

on

the

new

algorithm

with

your

idea

and

explained

its

advantages

clearly

with

a

most

simple

words.

?

?

it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language.

The authors did a good job in motivating the problem studied in the

introduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions

is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate

set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions

the authors propose.

?

Apparently

，

Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humble opinion

如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用

you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .....according to

review comments.

如果是接受，你可以用

We

are

very

pleased

to

inform

you

that

your

paper

has

been

accepted

by

[journal

name].

Please

prepare

your

paper

by

journal

template...............

At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece of

work, reporting on ×

×

×

. Fine, good quality, but all this has been done and

published,

and

nearly

become

a

well-known

phenomenon.

Therefore,

there

is

insufficient

novelty

or

significance

to

meet

publication

criteria.

Also, I did not see any expermental evidence how the ** is related with

**, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot

support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.

建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。

the

journal's

copy

editors

should

not

have

to

fix

the

many

remaining

errors. I sympathize that Chinese languages do not have an equivalent of

English articles 'a, an, the' and don't seem to grasp the material meaning

of

those

words.

The

author's

English

expert

decided

to

insert

the

word

'the' in front of most mentions of

is

only

one

system

and

the

authors

are

using

it

exclusively.

There

are

dozns

of

other

misuses.

Pages

2,3,

8,9,10,11,

and

12

are

littered

with

them. The paper is to difficult to read in its present form.

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）

< br>，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

(< /p>

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

There are many things wrong with this paper.

The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not

too many sentences are correct.

The

literature

review

is

poor.

The

paper

is

riddled

with

assertions

and

claims that should be supported by references.

The

paper

reads

as

an

advertisement

for

XXX.

It

is

not

clear

that

the

author is independent of XXX.

The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There

are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union,

for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one

first introduced the elements of the XXX model.

The model is also not as successful as the author claims. ……

Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that

I reject that the paper be rejected.

Reviewer: 2

The are two major problems with this paper:

(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the

sided

market

literature

including

that

directly

related

to

…

(e.g.

Braunstein,

JASIS

1977;

Economides

&

Katsanakas,

Mgt.

Sci.,

2006;

McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).

(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal.

Reviewer: 3

1. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript.

2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries.

3.

Description

style

material

like

this

manuscript

requires

structured

tables & figures for better presentations.

Ms. Ref. No.: ******

Title: ******

Materials Science and Engineering

Dear Dr. ******,

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are

advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake

the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.

For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.

Reviewer

#1:

This

work

proposes

an

extensive

review

on

micromulsion-based

methods

for

the

synthesis

of

Ag

nanoparticles.

As

such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious

limits:

1) the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;

2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also

the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several

examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the

paper. -

Once

the

above

concerns

are

fully

addressed,

the

manuscript

could

be

accepted for publication in this journal.

(

整理各大学术论坛相关 帖子，转帖

)

目前科技论文作者向 国际英文科技期刊投稿的方式有三种。

一是传统

的邮寄形式，< /p>

即通过国际快件将论文的原稿邮寄给刊物的主编或编辑

部。这种形 式曾经是投稿的近乎唯一的方式，持续了漫长的岁月，可

现在采用这种方式接受来稿的刊 物越来越少了。

二是用电子邮件的方

式投稿，

< br>即作者将原稿的电子文件发至主编或编辑部的电子信箱。

这

种投稿方式显然比邮寄快得多，

但与邮寄一样，

稿件也有丢失 的时候。

目前采用这种纳稿方式的期刊还很多，

但有很大一部分 期刊己经在此

基础上，又进了一步，发展到第三种也是目前最新的一种投稿方式，

即网上投稿

(ON-LINE

。这种方式速度快，而且稿件

不会丢失。一旦作者在网上登记注册投稿，每个主要步骤都有记录，

很受科技期刊作 者的欢迎。

本文将就网上投稿过程及作者应该注意的

地方予以详 细的介绍，供对此感兴趣的中国作者参考。

网上投稿的关键是要做好充分的准备工作。首先，作者 对所要投

稿的国际英文刊物的投稿需知

(GUIDE FOR AUTHORS)

要了解清楚，

并且按照要求准备好原稿的所有 文件。

一般科技论文分为回顾性文章

(REVIEW ARTI CLE)

，普通论文

(REGULAR/RESEARCH ARTICLE)

，

快讯

(SHORT

COMMUNICATIONS)

等。不同的文章类型，对原稿 的

格式要求也有所变化。

单就普通论文而言，

< br>文章从头到尾的基本格式

是：论文的开篇部分，包括文章标题

(TITLE)

，作者姓名

(AUTHOR’S