怎样写英文论文review(我的笔记)

（在

review

的最后必须给出明确的关于接 收与否的回答，

不要以百分度的形式给出不确切的答复）

How to peer review an article?

1.

Comment on large issues first

（从整体上进行评价）

(1)

Main point clear and interesting?

(2)

Is it effectively organized?

(3)

Are ideas adequately developed?

(4)

Is evidence used properly?

(5)

Is the research question clear and well justified?

(6)

Is the technical approach logical and rigorous?

(7)

How strong is the inference for the important conclusion?

（得出结论的过程

是否牵强？）

(8)

Are the results clear and statistically rigorous?

(9)

Does the discussion flow logically from the introduction?

(10)

Is there a clear and relevant topic sentence for each paragraph?

总的来说，主要是从全文的内容角度对文章的：结构组织性

(well

organized,

good

structure)

、逻 辑性

(logical)

、严谨性

(r igorous)

、论据的合理性

(justified, < /p>

reasonable)

、说

服力

(convincing)

等方面对文章进行总体评论。

2.

Go on to smaller issues later

（对细节进行评价，包括每一段）

(1)

Awkward or confusing sentences

(2)

Style

(3)

Grammar

(4)

Word choice

(5)

Proofreading

（校正）

(6)

Clarity and comprehensibility of content

(7)

Accuracy

(8)

Readability

—

in terms of logic, sequencing and flow

(9)

Consistency

—

in the content language and use of key terms

< br>总的来说，

从细节部分考虑的主要是语言角度：

纯从英语 语言的角度对文章细节进行评

价，包括语法、词法、选词是否恰当、行文是否可读

(read- friendly)

、是否

native-like

introduc tion,

material

and

method, result, discussion, conclusion.

3.

Comment

on

whether

the

introduction

clearly

announces

the

topic

and

suggests the approach that will be taken;

4.

Comment on whether ideas are clear and understandable

5.

Specify your own feelings about where you

’

ve stuck and why. How to revise

to avoid this stuck.

6.

Try

to

describe

what

you

see

in

the

paper:

what

the

main

point

and

organization pattern you think in this paper.

7.

Identify what

’

s missing and needs to be explained more fully. Also what can

be cut.

!!!!YES or NO questions a review should include and elaborated in details!!!!

(Elaborate these answers on language use, linguistic features and wording)

1. The article title is appropriate.

2. The abstract accurately reflects the content.

3. The purpose or thesis of the article is stated clearly.

4. The purported

（声称的）

significance of the article is explicitly stated.

5. The article adequately ties to the relevant literature.

6. The research study methods are sound and appropriate.

7. The literature review and research study methods are explained clearly.

8. The primary thesis is argued persuasively.

9. The writing is clear concise and interesting.

10. All figures, tables, and photos are necessary and appropriate.

11. The conclusions or summary are accurate and supported by the content.

12. The article is of interest to many URISA members.

Reviewer Recommendation:

（最后给 出的接收与否的结论）

?

Please indicate which of the following actions you recommend.

?

(

)

1.

Publish, no significant alterations suggested.

?

(

)

2.

Publish,

but

suggest

changes

to

the

article

as

specified

in

this

review.

?

(

)

3.

Publish,

but

suggestions

as

specified

in

this

review

must

be

addressed

by

either

making

changes

or

explaining

why

changes

would

be

inappropriate

?

(

)

Check here if altered article should be resubmitted to the reviewer

?

(

)

4.

Reject, but encourage author to try a major revision and a second

peer review

?

(

)

5.

Reject, do not encourage a rewrite

Samples for peer review

On January 22, 2007, Conrad Mauclair and colleagues submitted a manuscript

entitled “

Quantifying the effect of humic matter on the suppression of mercury

emissions from artificial soil surfaces

” for consideration to the journal

Applied

Geochemistry

. The manuscript was sent out by the editor to two peer reviewers,

who were given one to two months to complete the review. The reviewers sent

comments to the editor, and after considering the reviewers’ comments, the editor

chose to accept the manuscript with revisions, and responded as such to the authors

approximately five months after their initial submission. Excerpts from the letter the

editor wrote to the authors detailing this decision are printed below.

Editor

返还给作者时的评论：总结出接收与否，并根据

reviewe r

的意见提出

editor

自己的观点 。关键词：

issues to be addressed

27 May 2007

Dear Authors:

I have received two reviews of your manuscript entitled

“Quantifying the effect of humic matter on the suppression

of mercury emissions from artificial soil surfaces”

submitted for publication in

Applied Geochemistry

. In

addition I have read your paper and have some additional

comments

that

are

below.

All

reviewers

including

myself

agree

the paper after revisions is acceptable for publication.

I

have

attached

both

reviewers’

comments

to

this

email.

Both

reviewers

raise

some

important

issues

that

need

to

be

clearly

addressed in your revised paper. I agree with their concerns

and below have added a few others that need to be addressed.

Sincerely,

Editor for Special Issue of

Applied Geochemistry

Additional detailed comments from the Editor:

The

mass

balance needs to be considered [as detailed by

reviewer 2]. My guess is your flow rate is producing an

artificially

high

flux. The way

to

deal with this would be to

use

the

actual

concentration

difference

between

the

inlet

and

outlet

instead

of

the

flux

to

calculate

the

amount

lost.

Plot

the difference between the outlet and inlet concentrations

rather than flux.

The reviewers’ comments were attached to the editor’s letter with the names of the

reviewers removed. In the case of journal manuscripts accepted with revision, the

authors have the opportunity to read and respond to the reviewers’ comments and

make changes to the article in question. In the case of grant submissions, scientists

read the reviewers comments and use these to strengthen their submission the next

time they apply for a grant. For the article by Mauclair and colleagues, the reviewers

had a number of recommendations for improving the article, as the excerpts

provided below detail.

Reviewer 1

对论文的评价 ：将整个

review

融合为一个整体，先从整体上评论（包括 文

章的逻辑、结构以及对该领域的意义及其重要性），再深入到细节评论。

Excerpts of comments from Reviewer 1:

This research article reports a controlled laboratory

experimental study to probe the role of humic matter in Hg

emission from soils. The experiments appear to enjoy sound

design and fine performance. The results are certainly very

interesting and valuable; this study will stimulate more

research to further the exploration.

The “suppression of mercury emission”

[in the title] is an

interpretation

of

the

experimental

observations,

rather

than

an

unequivocal

conclusion.

It

might

be

better

to

use

a

[more]

conservative title like “Quantifying the Effect of Humic

Matter on

Mercury Emissions from

Artificial Soil Surfaces”.

I’d think the reader might come up with some different

interpretations other than “suppression”.

Would [additional

experiments with]

controls

of humic matter

plus Hg(II)

salt

only (without any sand) offer any more

[information]?

Reviewer 2

对文章的评价：也是先整体后局部细节。但是从总体上

时采用罗列的 形式从各个角度评价文章是否达到了接收的标准

（包括

组织性、 逻辑性、可读性、重要性等）

Excerpts of comments from Reviewer 2:

In response to direct comments requested by the editor:

?

Originality:This

paper

systematically

tests

the

combined

impact of humic matter content and

light

in synthetic

soils. Very few studies have reported similar work.

?

Importance:

This

work’s

main conclusion is that

organic

matter content alters Hg emissions from soils. This

conclusion is of significant interest to mercury

biogeochemists and may promote related field-based

research,

and

help

in

the

interpretation

of

current

data

sets.

?

Manner of presentation:The paper is short, clear and to

the point. More discussion of possible mechanisms and

more

details

on

related

field

studies

(where

fluxes

and

organic matter have been correlated) could be added.

?

Quality of figures and tables: I do not think that the

authors

have

reached

an

optimal

design

for

the

graphical

presentation of their data. Figure 1, 2 & 3 could be

easily

combined,

which

would

help

the

reader

to

compare

the results taken at different intervals for the same

experiments. In fact, these graphs could even be

transformed in time series line graphs (instead of

histograms).

I

am

not

sure

of

the

most

attractive

final

design, but the present design can be improved.

?

Serious flaws or can [the paper] be improved by

condensation or deletion of information: I have not

found

any

serious

flaws.

I

can

say

that

I

am

not

totally

at ease with a study that reports only results from

synthetic soils. It would have been nice to complement

this

data

with

some

?real?

soils.

But

I

think

that

such

a

systematic,

laboratory

study

is

useful

and

pertinent.

?

Does the title and

abstract

correspond to the content of

the manuscript: Yes

?

Would you be willing to re-review this paper after

submission with revisions: Not necessary

Specific comments regarding the manuscript:

1.

Can

the

authors

comment

on

the

realism

of

their

approach?

What are the limits of using synthetic soils and

mixtures of inorganic Hg + humic acids? The fact that

they tried different kinds of humic matter is

comforting, but I would have like to see more info on

potential limitations.

2.

Page 9. Please clarify the design for the long term

monitoring

section.

For

instance,

were

the

lights

on

for

14

days

in

the

‘light

treatment”?

Was

this

continuous

flux

sufficient

to

decrease

the

pool

of

Hg

in

the

sample?

The

following

back [of] the

envelope calculations left

me worried by the results presented here:

3.

If we take an average flux of 2000 ng/m2/h for the light

+

sand

treatment

(see

figures

1,

2

and

3),

then

we

get

over

14

days

[and] 44 ?g

lost by

evasion,

whereas only

25 ?g

were added!!

4.

I suspect that the lamps were only ON during the

readings, once every week, but this should be more

obvious.

More

info

on

the

impact

of

the

flux

on

the

mass

balance of the samples should be added. If the lights

were turned OFF between weekly readings, how long were

they ON for the readings?

退后修改的整个来回过程

Once comments are received regarding a manuscript, it is up to the authors to

address those comments, or in cases where they disagree with a reviewer’s

comment, provide an explanation as to why they have not addressed the comment.

In the above case, the au

thor’s addressed the majority of the reviewers’ comments

and sent a letter back to the editor on June 10, 2007 detailing the changes made to

the article and discussing why some changes were not made:

July 10,2007

Dear Editors,

Enclosed is our revised manuscript. We have addressed all of

the comments returned to us in the reviews of our paper. In

addition, at the suggestion of reviewer 1, we have conducted

additional

experiments

with

100%

humic

acid

and

have

added

the

results

of

this

experiment

to

our

paper

to

assure

that

we

have

adequately addressed the experimental design comments. A

detailed list of all individual changes is included below.

All of the listed authors have read the revisions and agree

with their conclusions.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Detailed list of manuscript revisions

Responses to comments raised by Reviewer 1:

?

As

directed,

we

have

revised

the

title

of

the

manuscript

to “Quantifying the Effect of Humic

Matter on the

Emission of Mercury from Artificial Soil Surfaces.”

?

The

reviewer

raises

an

interesting

question

regarding

the

use of Hg-humic

controls

(without sand), these controls

were

not

examined

at

the

time

of

our

study.

However,

to

satisfy this question we have since conducted

additional experiments with a 100% humic sample using

1g humic and HgCl

2

sample (no sand). The results from