SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总
以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。
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claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:
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 "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.
◆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 "Instructions 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 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.
本文来自CSDN博客，转载请标明出处：
https://www.wendangku.net/doc/af17153273.html,/chenyusiyuan/archive/2008/12/03/3437577.aspx
老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见
Ms. Ref. No.: ******
Title: ******
Materials Science and Engineering
Dear Dr. ******,
Reviewers have now commented on your p
aper. 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
来源:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/af17153273.html,/blog/rensl.htm
这是一篇全过程我均比较了解的投稿，稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的，中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某核心期刊，并很快得到发表。其时我作为审稿人之一，除了提出一些修改建议外，还特建议了5篇应增加的参考文献，该文正式发表时共计有参考文献25篇。
作者或许看到审稿意见还不错，因此决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿。几经修改和补充后，请一位英文“功底"较好的中国人翻译，投稿后约3周，便返回了三份审稿意见。
从英文刊的反馈意见看，这篇稿件中最严重的问题是文献综述和引
用不够，其次是语言表达方面的欠缺，此外是论证过程和结果展示
形式方面的不足。
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），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(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 "two-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.
英文期刊审稿意见模板
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claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: 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 "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples. 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 "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen. 12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：
SCI 回复整理
暑假中了2篇SCI文章，影响因子都在IF=1.5-2.0之间。其实，在此之前，本人已经发表了若干SCI，而且已经是两个期刊的Reviewer。但尽管如此，随着文章积累越多，对SCI写作的认识也有所熟悉和深入。下面谈谈一些体会，与大家分享。 第一篇：去年12月份投稿，7月份返回意见。结论是：“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”实际上，这个结论已经非常好了。我看了以下审稿意见，然后就逐条的进行了Response。其中Response letter的格式我是参考了我审稿过的一篇德国学者的回复模式（我认为非常好）。但是，在审稿意见中，有一条意见要我对实验过程做一描述。我认为完全没有必要，所以没有改此项。很快，R1版文件被主编审回。我认为应该“Complete Accept”了，但意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”不出所料，主编的意见就是R1中没有改的那条，而且比较客气，认为“Probably the authors did not notice this requirement. Howev er, this issue is critical: to judge the value of the reported methodological development;”没有办法，我又认真对意见进行了修改。R2版文件我认为没有问题了，就等Accept了。 可是R2返回后，主编的意见还是意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”这次一看，原来意见是“The paper requires careful editing for use of English.”我想应该不会啊。我又仔细审查了Text，结果还是发现了几个不应该的拼写错误。我的Word的拼写可能出问题了，前几次竟然没有发现。这次，我不敢大意了，俗话云：事不过三。如果再有问题，主编的大斧可能就来了。于是，我认真的检查了全文，写了Resonse letter: Dear the Editors and reviewers: We appreciate again your valuable comments very much, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. According to the comments, we have revised our paper as follows: 1）Comment s: "…….. ." According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have checked again our spelling and rewriten or modified a number of expressions in the abstract, text, figures, and tables. Thanks ***, a reviewer of International Journal of ****, for his kind help on the text modifications(这是我表示诚意，特意加上去的). Especially, in the Acknowledgement, we added our thanks for anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our present paper. 果然，R3版文件当天就被主编接受了。意见：“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the reviewers have accepted your paper for publication.The proofs will be sent to you within three months of receipt of this email.” 通过上面的来回反复，我发现SCI回复意见一定要态度认真，逐条回复。对于中国作者，及时主编不说，也要对English进行认真核对，认真决定一切！ 这次，我真的学了很多经验教训。就在我改动之间，我又准备了另外一篇，而且把这篇Accept 的文章也引用上了。 第二篇：这次准备的非常充分，尤其是语法方面画了大量功夫，内容也比较新。就是把实验数据反过来了。不是直接报数据，而是先给了模型，而后用实验去验证。我感到满意的是Introduction。这里，我充分参考了木虫上Fudanmazhen的经验，尽量在“讲故事，而不是讲历史”。结果，7月29日投出，8月5日主编返回意见：直接接受，而且说无需任何进一步改动。目前，此篇文章已经上网了。与此同时，主编还发给我一篇西班牙作者的文章，让我当Reviewer。我肯定欣然接受了。因此，我本来就是这个期刊的审稿人。当然，这是我SCI运气最好的一次，估计也是最后一次了，因为直接接受的情形确实很少，我也不奢望每篇文章都这样，除非自己当主编。但是，通过这个假期的SCI较量，
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿意见汇总 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one 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 expla natio n of why the authors did these various experime nts should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的ratio nale: Also, there are few expla nati ons of the rati on ale for the study desig n. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The con clusi ons are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.
SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。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claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: 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. ：题问度谨严、10． 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 Instructions for Authors which shows examples. ◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集
SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全 修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏 針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
英文审稿意见
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
英文论文审稿意见范文
This paper addresses an important and interesting problem -automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo. The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts. Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts. The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo. Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved: (1) The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paper in Section 1. (2) In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain a value very close to on GACS if all its accounts have entirely copied their own texts, images or contact information”. However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not considered when computing GACS. (3) In Algorithm 1 on Pg. 17, it seems that “t=t+1” should be added after line 6. (4) I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in Section 9. (5) There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.
回答SCI审稿人的方法
如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人尤为重要。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。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。 第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。 上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。 写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面
一些英文审稿意见的模板
一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】 来源：Elaine 王倩的日志 最近导师让我帮忙审了两篇英文文章，觉得写的都不怎么样，顿时觉得自己的也不太差吧嘿嘿。但是怎么写评审还是有经验需要学习，自己也不能写的太不专业。不过我的意见也不过是给老师写意见的一个参考，具体能不能过我就毋须多言了。 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
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧 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。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。 上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。 写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不
英文论文审稿常用套话
编辑一般会发给审稿人一个提纲，类似于这样的： 文章编号 题目 对文章一个概括性的描述及审稿人自己的决定（接受，拒，大修，小修等） 审稿意见： 1、XX 2、XX 3、XX ... 审稿意见的一些套话 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?
英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总 2011-04-24 19:24 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your m anus cript needs careful editing by s om eone with expertise in technical Englis h editing paying particular attention to Englis h gramm ar, spelling, and s entence s tructure s o that the goals and results of the s tudy 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 s tatis tical me thods us ed in the s tudy. ◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experim ents s hould be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Als o, there are few explanations of the rationale for the s tudy des ign. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclus ions are overs tated. For exam ple, the s tudy did not s how if the s ide effects from initial copper burs t can be avoid with the polym er form ulation. 5、对hypothes is的清晰界定： A h ypothesis needs to be pres ented。 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 volum e ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Tr y to s et the problem dis c uss ed in this paper in m ore 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 propos ed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experim ental com paris on of the algorithm with previous ly known work, s o it is imposs ible to judge whether the algorithm is an im provem ent on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is eas ier than the prim itive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆In addition, the lis t of refere nces is not in our s tyle. It is close but not com pletely correct. I have at tached a pdf file with "Ins tructions for Authors" which shows exam ples.
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全 修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏 针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...