-
在比较高级别的会议、
期刊等,
评审系统中包括
给编辑的和给作者的
评审意见。本文就这两部分评审以及进行汇总
第一部分:给作者的审稿意见
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
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<
/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.
英文论文写作、投稿详解
(
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,
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,
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,<
/p>
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 SUBMISSION)
。这种方式速度快,
p>
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。<
/p>
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<
/p>
回
顾
性
文
章
(REVIEW
ARTICLE)
,
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,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
NAME)(注明通讯作者
/CORRESPONDING <
/p>
AUTHOR)
,作
者单位地址
(AFFILIATION)
,论文摘要
(AB
STRACT)
,关键词
(KEYWORDS)
等;论文的正文
部分,包括介绍
/
引言
(INTRODUCTION)
,实验方法
(METHOD)
,实验材料
(MATERIAL
)
,结
果与分析
(RESULTS
AND
ANALYSIS)
,讨论(
DISCUSSION
)
,
结论(
CONCLUSION
)等;需
说明的是不同的学科,
正文的内容和形式会有所增减,
< br>图表、
公式的数量也会有所不同。
正文后的结尾部分有的
文章附加致谢辞
(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
,有的则
没有,但参考文献
(REFERENCE)
则是必须的。有的文
章还带有附录
(APPENDIX)
,如全部的实验原始数据、
计算机软件程序等。现在有的刊物可以在网上发表的文章中附带电子视听文件
(E-COMPONENTS)
。如短录像片
(V
IDEO CLIP)
,动画片
(SHORT CARTOON
)
等。作者要根据
自身的情况,
选择文
章应该包含的内容,
一旦确定,
所有的内容都要在网上投稿前准
备
好。此外,不但原稿的内容和格式要符合刊物的要术,而且在字数、页数、格式、文件
储存形式等方面,均要与投稿刊物的要求一致。否则,文章在初选阶段会很快落选。其<
/p>
次,
是作者对投稿刊物网上投稿系统的熟悉和学习。
如果可能,
最好请有这方面经验的
作者上一课,
p>
可以节省时间和事半功倍。
如果找不到合适的老师,
作者自己要耐心地自
学。从刊物的网页入手,仔细阅读网上的投稿需知、跟踪链
接或屏幕启示,把每个环节
搞明白弄清楚。
在网
上投稿,
头一步是在网页上注册,也叫作者登记。实际上与网上购物注册没太大
区别,关键是要把自己的姓名、单位、联系地址,包括电话、传真和电子邮箱等登记准
确无误。二是按部就班地输入文章的各个主要部分。如题目、作者、摘要、关键词、正
文、图表等。在输入每个部分的时候,一是要通读该部分的有关要求,再次确认自已输
入的文件是否符合要求。
这听起来并不难,
但实际上作
者在这方面的疏忽却很多。
比如
按要求,原稿不能超过
20
页,可有的原稿长达
40
< br>多页,甚至更长。有的文章作者完全
忽略了刊物对关键词的要求,
随心所欲。
二是确认每个部分输入的完整性。
有些作者
在
输入文件时过于匆忙,
十个图只输入一半,
< br>这样的稿件即使到了编辑部也不能送审,
只
能返回作者补
漏。
如果审校员一时疏忽或主编没有查觉,
将有缺欠的文章发出
送审,
则
审稿人因为缺图,
不能正常审
阅文章。
这样造成的麻烦所耽误的时间会更多。
三是输入
文件完毕后,也就是所有的部分成功地输入后,不要忘了点击投稿发送键。否则,稿件
只会存储在作者自已的文件夹中,而不是发到编辑部。目前,许多科技期刊网上投稿,
需把文件由一种存储形式转换到另一种存储形式,
比如
DOC
文件变成
PDF
文件。
p>
在这个
转换过程中,计算机屏幕会呈停滞状态,看上去好像死机了。
其实不然,只需耐心等待
罢了。原稿在网上成功投出后,作者马上就能收到编辑部的回执
。如果有问题,屏幕上
则会出现问题预警或解决问题的提示。
如
果作者不能自行解决故障或问题反复出现,
作
者可与出版社的网
上投稿支持部门联系,
求得帮助。
此外值得一提的是,
部分著名出版
社的网页上除附有投稿需知外,
还
专门设计了针对网上投稿的指导示范文件。
作者初学
乍练时可以
抽时间学习一下。总之,网上投稿并不难,关键是准备充分,而且在实际上
机操作时按部
就班,不能单纯求快,否则欲速而不达。
编辑部收到稿件后,有的是直接
送审,有的是先进行一步初选
(
主要是检查论文的英
文是否过关
)
,然后再送审。不论是哪种情况,论
文在送审前均需通过最基本的技术检
查。目的是看原稿是否包含了应该有的基本内容。有
些刊物的编辑部就设在出版社内,
这类期刊的检查会更全面,包括文件形式、内容、作者
联系方式、文章是否属于重复性
投稿等等。
一旦发现问题
(
比如原稿过长,
关键词不符合要求等
)
,
原稿会马上返回作者,
< br>进行必要的补充和修改。
原稿一旦退回作者,
文件便会重
新回到作者自己在网上的投稿
文件夹里,等候修改。与此同时,作者的电子信箱内同样会
收到一封编辑部的来信,明
确告之稿件应该进行修改或补充的地方。
作者只需上网从自己的文件夹中调出文件修改
即可。
一旦文
件修改完毕,
作者又要根据出版社信函中的提示,
上网按步骤再
将原稿发
回刊物的编辑部。
这个操作过程和最开始的投稿大同小
异,
往往也要将
DOC
文件转换成
p>
PDF
文件。原稿返回编辑部送审后,有的会很干脆地被拒绝,有的
会顺利地圆满接受,
但大部分原稿需按审稿人的意见进行规模不同的修改。
经过作者修改过的稿件又需要在
网上重新发回编辑部。
但有的作者在接到主编或编辑部转来的审稿人意见后,
对其评价
有很大的异议或不愿改动自己的论文,
便可以主动要求退稿。
手续很简单,
只需向编辑
部发个电子邮件即可或自己上网撤稿。
如果作者愿意根据审稿人的意见改动论文,
则需
改得全面彻底,
并且对审稿人提出的疑问要一一做答。
这份单独的问答要整理成一份单
独的文件,
在网上再次发稿时使
用。
如果缺少这份问答文件,
在许多期刊网上投发修改
稿时会出现障碍,
应引起作者的注意。
修改后的
论文要从作者网上的论文文件夹里发给
编辑部,
最初的原稿可以
存储在文件夹中,
可作者一定要确定第二次投出的稿件是修改
后
的文件,
而不是初稿。
这种张冠李戴的事在网上投稿过程中时有
发生。
文件名称明明
显示是修改稿,
可
审稿人打开文件后才发现是初稿又原封不动地回来了,
让人有点哭笑
不得。修改过的稿件回到编辑部后,原稿的编码序号不变,只是多了一或二个尾数,表
明是修改稿。
有的稿件改动一次即可被刊物采纳,
但也有的要
反复修改多次才能被通过。
对被否定的文章,
如果作者对否定的
原因有异议,
可以向编辑部或主编提出自己的意见,
据理力争。
如果主编同意作者的意见,
文章可以重新进入新的一轮审稿程序
。
这种情况
不多,
但在网上这样的文章
也同样记录在案。
在网上投出的稿件不论改动多少回,
其序
p>
号都不会改变,
只有尾数的变动,
以表明是
修改后的第几稿。
比如
R1
是第一次修
改稿,
R2
是第二份修改稿,依此类推。但每份修改过的文件在
网上都有记录,而且每份审稿
人的意见也都记录在案。
不单如此
,
整个审稿过程中经过刊物网页发给作者的电子邮件
也都有记录
。总之,每一个步骤都有据可查,只要整个系统不出问题,就不会有稿件丢
失的情况发生
。
由此可见,
网上投稿的好处的确很多,难怪深受广大作者的欢迎
。现在有许多科技期
刊已经告别了邮寄和电子邮件的时代,
开始
只受理网上投稿。
今后,
这样的期刊可能会
越来越多。
所以,
能自如地驾驭好网上投稿这个新的投稿手
段,
对学者们而言无疑是件
好事。
附录
投稿信件的一些套话
一、投稿信
1.
Dear Dr. Defendi ML:
I am sending a
manuscript entitled “” by –
which I
should like to submit
for possible
publication in the journal of - .
Yours
sincerely
2. Dear Dr. A:
Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “”
by sb, which we are submitting for
publication
in
the
journal of
-
.
We
have
chosen
this
journal
because
it
deals
with
-
.
We
believe
that
sth
would
be
of
interest
to
the
journal’s
readers.
3. Dear
Dr. A:
Please find enclosed for your
review an original r
esearch article, “”
by sb.
All authors have read and
approve this version of the article, and due care
has been taken to ensure the integrity
of the work. No part of this paper
has
published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of
interest exits in the
submission
of
this
manuscript,
and
we
have
attached
to
this
letter
the
signed letter granting
us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.
We appreciate your
consideration of our manuscript, and we look
forward
to receiving comments from the
reviewers.
二、询问有无收到稿件
Dear
Editors,
We dispatched our
manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but
have
not,
as
yet,
receive
acknowledgement
of
their
safe
arrival.
We
fear
that
may
have
been
lost
and
should
be
grateful
if
you
would
let
us
know
whether
or
not
you
have
received
them.
If
not,
we
will
send
our
manuscript again. Thank you in advance
for your help.
三、询问论文审查回音
Dear
Editors
,
It
is
more
than
12
weeks
since
I
submitted
our
manuscript
(No:
)
for
possible publication in
your journal. I have not yet received
a
reply and
am wondering whether you have
reached a decision. I should appreciated
your letting me know what you have
decided as soon as possible.
四、关于论文的总体审查意见
1.
This
is
a
carefully
done
study
and
the
findings
are
of
considerable
interest. A few
minor revision are list below.
2. This
is a well-written paper containing interesting
results which merit
publication.
For
the
benefit
of
the
reader,
however,
a
number
of
points
need
clarifying and certain statements require further
justification. There
are given below.
3. Although these observation are
interesting, they are rather limited and
do
not
advance
our
knowledge
of
the
subject
sufficiently
to
warrant
publication
in
PNAS.
We
suggest
that
the
authors
try
submitting
their
findings to specialist journal such as
–
4. Although
this paper is good, it would be ever better if
some extra data
were added.
5.
This
manuscript
is
not
suitable
for
publication
in
the
journal
of
–
because
the
main
observation it
describe was
reported 3
years
ago
in
a
reputable journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with
English language to help you rewrite
this paper. As you will see, I have
made some correction at the beginning
of the paper where some syntax is not
satisfactory.
7.
We
feel
that this
potentially
interesting
study
has been
marred by
an
inability to communicate the finding
correctly in English and should like
to
suggest
that
the
authors
seek
the
advice
of
someone
with
a
good
knowledge of English, preferable native
speaker.
8. The wording and style of
some section, particularly those concerning
HPLC, need careful editing. Attention
should be paid to the wording of
those
parts
of
the
Discussion
of
and
Summary
which
have
been
underlined.
9.
Preliminary
experiments
only
have
been
done
and
with
exception
of
that
summarized
in
Table
2,
none
has
been
repeated.
This
is
clearly
unsatisfactory,
particularly
when
there
is
so
much
variation
between
assays.
10.
The
condition
of
incubation
are
poorly
defined.
What
is
the
temperature? Were antibody used?
五、给编辑的回信
1. In reply to the
referee’s
main criticism of paper, it is possible to say
that
–
One minor point raised by the referee
concerns of the extra composition
of
the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now
been corrected. Further
minor
changes
had
been
made
on
page
3,
paragraph
1
(line
3-8)
and
2
(line 6-11). These do not
affect our interpretation of the result.
2. I have read the referee’s comments
very carefully and conclude that the
paper
has
been
rejected
on
the
sole
grounds
that
it
lake
toxicity
data.
I
admit
that I did not include a toxicity table in my
article although perhaps
I should have
done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than
an error
or omission.
3.
Thank
you
for
your
letter
of
–
and
for
the
referee’s
comments
concerning our
manuscript entitled “”. We hav
e studied
their comments
carefully
and
have
made
correction
which
we
hope
meet
with
their
approval.
4. I enclosed a
revised manuscript which includes a report of
additional
experiments
done
at
the
referee’s
suggestion.
You
will
see
that
our
original findings are
confirmed.
5. We are sending the
revised manuscript according to the comments of
the reviewers. Revised portion are
underlined in red.
6.
We
found
the
referee’s
comments
most
helpful
and
have
revised
the
manuscript
7. We
are pleased to note the favorable comments of
reviewers in their
opening sentence.
8.
Thank
you
for
your
letter.
I
am
very
pleased
to
learn
that
our
manuscript is acceptable for
publication in Cancer Research with minor
revision.
9. We have
therefore completed a further series of
experiments, the result
of which are
summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that
intrinsic
factor is not account.
10.
We
deleted
the
relevant
passage
since
they
are
not
essential
to
the
contents of the paper.
11. I
feel that the reviewer’s comments
co
ncerning Figures 1 and 2 result
from a misinterpretation of the data.
12.
We
would
have
include
a
non-protein
inhibitor
in
our
system,
as
a
control, if
one had been available.
13.
We
prefer
to
retain
the
use
of
Table
4
for
reasons
that
it should
be
clear from the new paragraph inserted
at the end of the Results section.
14.
Although
reviewer
does
not
consider
it
is
important
to
measure
the
temperature of the cells, we consider
it essential.
15. The running title has
been changed to “”.
16.
The
Materials
and
Methods
section
now
includes
details
for
measuring uptake of isotope and
assaying hexokinase.
17.
The
concentration
of
HAT
media
(page12
paragraph
2)
was
incorrectly stated in the original
manuscript. This has been rectified. The
authors are grateful to the referees
for pointing out their error.
18. As
suggested by both referees, a discussion of the
possibility of laser
action on
chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph
2).
19.
We
included
a
new
set
of
photographs
with
better
definition
than
those originally
submitted and to which a scale has been added.
20.
Following
the
suggestion
of
the
referees,
we
have
redraw
Figure
3
and 4.
21.
Two
further
papers,
published
since
our
original
submission,
have
been added to the text and Reference
section. These are:
22. We should like
to thank the referees for their helpful comments
and
hope that
we
have
now
produced
a
more
balance
and
better account of
our
work.
We
trust
that
the
revised
manuscript
is
acceptable
for
publication.
23. I greatly
appreciate both your help and that of the referees
concerning
improvement
to
this
paper.
I
hope
that
the
revised
manuscript
is
now
suitable
for publication.
24. I should like to
express my appreciation to you and the referees
for
suggesting how to improve our
paper.
25. I apologize for the delay in
revising the manuscript. This was due to
our doing an additional experiment, as
suggested by referees.
附录
er
投稿各种状态总结
1.
Submitted
to
Jour
nal
当上传结束后,显示的状态是
Submitted
to
Journal
,这个状态
是自然形成的无需处理。
2. With editor
如果
在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑,就先到主编那,
主编会分派给别的编
< br>
辑。这当中就会有另两个状态:
3. Editor
assigned
4.
Editor Declined Invitation
如果编辑接手处理了就会邀请审稿人了。
5. Reviewer(s)
invited
如果审稿人接受那就会是以下状态:
6. Under review
这应该是一个漫长的等待。
当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的,
p>
要看编辑
的处理情况。
< br>如果被邀请审稿人不想审,就会
decline
,编辑会
重新
邀请别的审稿人。
7. required review
completed
审稿结束,等编辑处理。
8. Decision in
Process
到了这一步就快要有结果了,
编辑开始考虑是给
修改还是直接拒,
当然也有可能直接接受的,但可能性很小,呵呵。
9. Minor
revision/Major revision
这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了,问题
不大了,因为有修
改就有可能。具体
怎么改就不多说了,谦虚谨慎
是不可少的。
10. Revision
Submitted to Journal
又开始了一个循环。
11.
Accepted
如果不要再审,只是小修改,编辑看后会马上显示这个
状态,但如果要再
审也会有上面的部分状态。一步会比较快,但也有
慢的。看杂志的。
还有个状态是
Rejected
。希望不要出现。其他库的状态,基本是大同
小异,供参考:
p>
附录
3.
一些常见的英文文章语言技巧
p>
a)
如何指出当前研究的不足以及有目的
地引导出自己的研究的重要
性。通常在叙述了前人成果之后,用
However
来引导不足,比如
However, little information..
little attention...
little
work...
little data
little
research
or few studies
few
investigations...
few researchers...
few attempts...
or no
none of these studies
has (have) been
less
done on ...
focused on
attempted to
conducted
investigated
studied
(with respect to)
Previous research (studies, records)
has (have)
failed to consider
ignored
misinterpreted
neglected to
overestimated,
underestimated
misleaded
thus, these previus results are
inconclisive, misleading,
unsatisfactory, questionable, controversial..
Uncertainties
(discrepancies) still exist ...
这种引导一般提出一种新方法,
或者
一种新方向。
如果研究的方法以
及方向和前人一样,可以通过下
面的方式强调自己工作的作用:
However, data
is still scarce
rare
less
accurate
there is still dearth of
We need to
aim
to
have to
provide more
documents
data
records
studies
increase the dataset
Further studies are still necessary...
essential...
为了强
调自己研究的重要性,一般还要在
However
之前介绍自己
研
究问题的反方面,另一方面等等
比如:
1)
时间问题
如果你研究的问题时间上比较新,
你就可以大量提及对时间较老的问
< br>题的研究及重要性,然后说
(However)
,对时间
尺度比较新的问题研
究不足
2)
物性及研究手段问题
如果你要应用一种新手段或者研究方向,
你可以提出当前比较流行的
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇:热力学数据
下一篇:一位老法官生活感悟随笔