该论文采用β-环糊精修饰玻碳电极对1-萘酚进行测定，研究目的明确，方法具有一定的创新性，与其他方法相比，本文所用方法操作简便，其测试条件显示本方法有实际应用的潜在价值。文中对实验条件进行了细致的优化，并且对模拟水样进行了测定，内容充实，但其优化实验条件的数据没有写在文中，建议将此部分数据补充，同时将数据图处理的更加清晰标准（CV图中没有标注电位相对于哪种参比电极）。如果能对实际水样进行测定可以更加明确的展示方法的实际应用价值，建议补充实际水样测定实验。

整篇文中思路清晰，所列数据能够很好的支持相应问题。建议修改后同意接收。

 

第二篇：审稿意见参考

一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：

（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

英文论文审稿意见汇总

以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。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 been edited because the subject is interesting.

◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.

◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.

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）：

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

The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.

Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?

the quality of English needs improving. 

作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊），

但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意，

就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名信息等就都删除了，

以免造成不必要的麻烦！

希望朋友们多评价，其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家！

国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志，

被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！

个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，

所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！

登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，

详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！

两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！

（括号斜体内容为我注解）

Reviewer 4

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25

Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.

Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.

Name: XXX

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。" it has been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form.

1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but:

- the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）

- it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),

- it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),

- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).

（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）

2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors

- state that XXXXX

- state that XXXX

- This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size?

（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）

3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write "XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates!!!

（研究了什么？？？）

4.英语写作要提高

（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）

Reviewer 5

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A

Comments to Editor:

Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.

Name:（国人）

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx

Dear editor:

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used.

The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:

（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）

1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.

（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！

朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈））

2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 ?C.

（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊）

3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。 However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particle size?

（作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）

4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?

（虫子们自己注意）

5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了）

-------------=================================================================================================

Comments to the Author

The authors have discussed the redesign of a sit-ski to increase the robustness and decrease the work done by the skier to control the ski. From an experimental direction, the manuscript is simple. This reviewer believes there are many more concerns about sit-ski design than the authors have measured or discussed, however, for a single manuscript they have focused on measuring two important performance issues and discussing other import performance issues. On these topics the manuscript is clearly well-written. This reviewer thinks that the manuscript could be strengthened with just a few modifications and additions listed below

Comments1.Besides performance issues, the authors should address possible safety issues with their new design. In instances of crash is this new structure just as safe as current sitski designs? Is the structure as durable from repetitive use as needed/expected by the skier?

2.Page 3, 2nd paragraph: How does COM moving away from binding during compression impede skiing performance?

3.Page 6, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: change “more or less muscle belly” to “body mass distribution”

4.Table 1 can be removed and the values can be transferred to figure 1 or figure 1 caption

5.Page 9, last full sentence: I believe Winter’s reported values are from Dempster. Please cite Dempster if this is correct. Also, it is vague on how Dempster’s/Winter’s anthropometrics were applied to the body. How were locations of body segments and anatomical locations identified in space?

6.Page 11, 1st sentence says the I was calculated without outriggers, but figure 6 shows with outriggers. Make sure these are not contradictory.

7. Grammar issues

a. Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: make “mean” plural

b. Page 4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: should “early” be changed to “easily”?

c. Page 11, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 2nd “and” to “an”

d. Table 4: change “1,06” to “1.06”

From my point of view, the work is well-done and provides interesting results to the XXX and thus it merits to be published. Just, I suggest some minor modifications before publication:

The subject considered is an interesting one and the paper is well organized. The Introduction gave a satisfactory literature survey on the similar topic and it outlined the proposed method well. Appropriate figures were given to make the paper understood easily. I think that the paper is publishable in the XXX after some minor revision.