如何学习审稿

专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。

一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。

那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。

做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为。其次是要具备科学技能。审稿人面临的挑战是，要发现那些作者本人没有发现的东西。这是一项艰巨的任务，需要两项科学技能，一是对文献有全面掌握，即熟悉进展，又熟悉经典；二是掌握相关的科学知识，能够将科理和科学发现应用到新的科学研究中。当然，审稿人也会碰到自己不熟悉的知识点，这时可以向他人请教、学习，或者谢绝审稿，请编辑另找他人。第三要有乐于助人的态度。做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到审稿人所在学术机构或同行的认可。令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量。不满意的作者对审稿人会有一些负面看法：挑剔、草率、武断、教条、肤浅、傲慢、不公正、忌妒、自私自利。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够提高稿件的科学性和易读性，能够增加作者的知识，提高作者从事和报道科学研究的能力。审稿时应该对作者及其工作充满敬意，要耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，但又不能“放水”。提出的意见要有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；要提出明确的建议（但不一定明确是接受或拒绝）。最后，审稿当然需要时间。如果只读一遍，恐怕会错失重要的深入看法。在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，常常需要反复斟酌。不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够。审稿给审稿人带来的好处，已如前述。但审稿肯定会与自己的工作、甚至生活发生冲突，看病、、科研、申请课题、休假等等，不一而足。无论如何，既然接受了审稿邀请，你就必须拿出足够的时间。

具体到审稿过程或步骤，每个人可能都有自己的经验。但一般来说，可分为接受任务、阅读和评价、提出建议和撰写审稿意见等步骤。

1．接受审稿邀请

对于自己感兴趣的题目，研究工作在自己的专业技能之内，而且又能拿出时间认真审阅时，可考虑接受邀请。对于自己不熟悉的专业领域，应果断拒绝。只要你说明拒绝的理由，编辑不会认为你对审稿不感兴趣。

2．阅读和评价

先花点时间看看摘要，初步了解在实验设计、方法、结果和结论中，你需要看的重点是什么，特别要看出作者认为其工作的重点是什么。提出一个宽泛的问题，带着问题去看全文：例如，这是一篇关于方法学的论文、是病例总结还是病例报道?与以往的论文相比，本文的新意是什么?

然后再仔细阅读全文，要看懂；遇到看不懂的地方，要分析原因，是科学问题令人困惑，还是作者没有讲清楚。不合逻辑或有悖于常识的科学问题包括：互相矛盾、结论无根据、因果关系（归因）不当、不恰当推论、循环推理、纠缠于琐碎问题等。统计学问题也属于此类。至于写作问题，有的是不会写或写不好，对此应明确提出让作者修改，例如冗余、跑题、术语不解释、用词不准确、专业术语不规范、缩略语不规范。行文要求条理清楚，让读者跟着自己的思路走。更重要的是要看实验设计是否交待清楚，研究的逻辑性结构包括目的、假说、假说的可验性预测、结论等是否完善。重要问题不应不予以交代，例如方法学上的局限性，本研究结果与其他研究结果的不一致性或一致性等，都需在讨论部分予以说明。论文中还会经常碰到一些“低级“的过失误差，例如百分比加起来不是100，数字前后不一致等，这些往往很容易逃过审稿人的眼睛！

在读完第一遍后，先不要急于下结论。一定要拿出时间继续阅读第二遍，此时要对稿件做出评价。首先评价稿件的科学性，尽管一篇论文的结论是否正确，也许好几年后才能搞清楚。但问题是论文需要现在就发表，因此要看其科学性是否正确，特别是推论（论证）的质量、科理和知识的运用。一篇论文是否重要，不一定那么容易判断。是应用性研究还是基础性研究，就要考虑到对本刊的读者是否适宜。不要考虑作者的学术地位和名气；受尊敬的科学家和朋友的投稿，审稿人往往对其中的弱点不愿（不敢?）提出挑战，会感到犹豫不决，这对期刊是不利的。目前有的期刊采用作者匿名的方式送审，可能会避免这种情况，但到底能在多大程度上提高审稿质量尚有待证实。

其次要评价稿件的写作情况，表达是否清晰、准确、完整，这些问题一定要提出来；如果审稿人看起来费劲，更何况其他读者?当然不同作者的写作风格可有不同，倒也不必千篇一律。

看完后要尝试提出建议了。给编辑的建议要反映出：（1）对稿件最终处理意见的初步看法，即接受还是退稿；（2）在做出上述决定之前，你认为需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇论文探讨的问题是令人关注的课题，想法也令人很感兴趣，但其科学性不够强，那么你就要提出如何改进其科学性的建议。你可以提出正反两方面的看法，供编辑决定是否录用时参考。决定是否接受还要考虑到期刊的发表率。在很多情况下，审稿人的建议是 “待定”，等待作者对提出的问题给予答复。对于可能存在严重缺点的稿件，要特别注意给作者答复的机会；有时他们会很快将问题解决，有时问题并不一定能解决。

3．撰写审稿意见

审稿意见要用文字描述，不能只打勾（Ö）。给编者的话（致编辑）包括3个部分，文字要精炼，一般不超过二三百字：（1）概要，用三四句话说明研究的主题、基本方法、主要发现，解读（释义）作者的主要结论。这对于梳理审稿人的思路很重要，同时也让编辑能够更好地了解以下2部分提出的意见。（2）主要评价和问题。（3）建议，例如：本文提出了什么新的观点、有何新的发现、值得进一步修改，等等。

给作者的意见（致作者）要更加具体，字数更多一些。基本原则是，审稿人发现的问题，必须对作者说清楚；不要给予表扬，因为稿件能被接受，作者就够高兴的了；避免指责，这完全没有必要，作者反而会认为审稿人轻视别人、失礼。每一篇投稿都是同行长期工作的成果，对他们来说这意味着职称、学位、科研基金、成果、学术地位，或许还有奖金。

给作者的意见同样包括3个部分。（1）概要同 “致编辑”，作者可以获悉审稿人从其论文中看到了什么，有些可能是作者自己都想不到的，这有助于作者突出重点，如何准备回复或修改。（2）主要评价和问题：逐条书写，要解释清楚，要有依据；不要只给予“定性”的陈述，例如不要笼统地说“对照组不恰当，”要具体指出问题和理由。对于写作上的问题，审稿人有时也许会感到“生气”：文章没写好就投稿，太不礼貌了（甚至会说，太不严谨了）。 遇到写作问题，审稿人可具体罗列主要的几条，并提出修改建议。对于实在太差的，要明确告诉作者请其上级（导师）或有经验的同事帮着修改。（3）次要问题，例如冗余、符号使用不当、错别字等，审稿人一般会笼统地提及需要修改，但如果能按页码和分行逐一列出，作者肯定会对你的严谨态度和责任感表示敬佩。

如何正确审稿

很多人都审过稿，英文的、中文的。每个人审稿都要写出相应的意见。当意见是同意接受时，无论指的毛病有多犀利还是什么，作者都能认可。但是当意见是拒绝时，作者本能的反应就是意见写的太过火了，或者根本不是针对论文的。那么应该如何审稿才能尽量避免引起作者的强烈不满呢。很多人都有自己的观点，我说几个自认为很重要的意见：

1、不要因为写作水平差就随便拒稿。众所周知，从小学、初中、高中开始，很多学生都有偏科的现象，特别是很多数学或者物理好的人，往往作文水平差。虽然科技论文的写作属于八股论文，有一定的格式，但是很多时候有的人的表述还是不好。因此这种情况下，如果作者的论文有新意，只要写作能够把自己的观点表述清楚，就尽量建议接受，指出作者对文稿认真修改即可。

2、不要故意写作者没有做什么实验或模拟而拒稿。很多人做研究的时候，都喜欢把问题简单化，尽量减少某些考虑因素。因此在审稿的时候，只要作者针对某个因素进行了透彻的研究，千万不能因为没有考虑某些方面而拒稿。这里可能举例说明一下：比如做材料研究时，由于很多材料都是非球形，但是做数值模拟的时候为了简化，很可能将材料先作为球形来研究，只要作者利用球形得到的结果真实，要新意，那么就要接受该稿子。可能在审稿意见里建议作者继续做非球形的材料。

3、炒冷饭的一定要拒稿。很多人为了文章数量，将自己很多发表了的论文加以整理，但是没有任何新的工作，这样的稿子一定要坚持拒稿。审稿的时候，经常看到很多文章中大部分的实验和公式都是在国外或者国内好刊物上发表了，这样的稿件实质上属于一稿多发，遇到这种情况，千万不能因为作者是牛人，或者说别人的成果已经发表在牛刊物上就不好拒绝。一定要保证不能让人随便灌水。

4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。很多时候做科研或者写论文，都是在卖弄一些概念或者想法，只要任何人想到了，就能得到相应的结果。这个时候如果你恰好审到了一篇你很感兴趣的、而且想法很奇特、但是有新意的文章，千万不能因为觉得自己也能进行这样的工作而拒稿。

5、不能因为反对自己的观点而拒稿。很多研究生在写前言和综述的时候，经常引用一些大牛的综述，在综述里面经常会有某个观点和实验存在某些问题和缺点，如果这个时候你审的稿子中正好说到了自己的缺点，这个时候千万不要生气，一定要看看作者说自己的缺点在别人考虑问题中的重要性，如果很重要，那要看作者能不能解决，如果不重要，那就不要在意作者。

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。

以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。与大家一起分享。

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 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 instructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in the 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.

13、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.

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 revisions 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 is poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

完整模板：论文审稿

Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency analysis method in rotor systems

Journal of Sound and Vibration

Dear student ××××,

We have now received comments on your manuscript from the reviewers (reports included below). Please revise your manuscript according to the referee's suggestions and detail all the changes which you have made. I hope you will be prepared to undertake this, and I will then be pleased to reconsider the manuscript for publication. Please note that due to the extensive revisions necessay on your manuscript, it will need to be sent out for re-review.

If you do decide to revise the paper, we need to receive your new manuscript within the next six months. You are asked to submit the following items along with the manuscript:

(1) A point-by-point reply that we can send to each reviewer;

(2) A separate list of the revisions made to the manuscript.

It is important that you address all the issues raised by the referees, either by revision or reasoned rebuttal, before we make a decision on publication.

When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them.

To submit a revision, please go to http://ees.elsevier.com/jsv/ and login as an Author.

Your username is: ********

Your password is: **************

On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing Revision". You will find your submission record there.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Berryman

Editorial Office (Australasia)

Journal of Sound and Vibration

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: Comments on JSV-D-06-01203

Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency method in rotor systems

By: ××, ××and ××××××

The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:

1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.

2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.

3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research".

4. On Section 1:

This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.

Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration.

A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful.

5. On Section 2:

Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former.

Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed.

The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms.

6. On Sections 3 and 4:

The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs.

7. On Section 5:

The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods.

In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using rotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes.

Some of the paragraphs are too long.

8. The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how the time-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig.

The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider:

In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered at t=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain!

What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency techniques from the literature?

Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text.