审稿意见怎么写
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 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.
EnvironmentalMicrobiology(2008)10(12),3425–3426doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01813.x
Referees’Quotes–2008
Ourreferees,theEditorialBoardMembersandadhocreviewers,arebusy,seriousindividualswhogivesel?esslyoftheirprecioustimetoimprovemanuscriptssubmittedtoEnvironmentalMicrobiology.But,onceinawhile,theirhumour(oradmiration)getsthebetterofthem.Herearesomequotesfromreviewsmadeoverthepastyear,justintimefortheSeasonofGoodwillandMerriment.
?TheIntroductionandtheDiscussionsectionsarecon-tradictory.IevenbelievethattheDiscussionmayactu-allybelongtoanothermanuscript.
?Mouldybread.Unfortunatelytherearetoomanytech-nical?awsinthisone.Toobadbecausethepotentialwashigh.
?IfIhadknownthiswouldbesuchaneasyonetoreview(reject!),Iwouldhavedoneitsooner!
?TheAbstractandResultsreadmuchlikealaundrylist.?Nicemethod!Infact,thisworkhasscoopedusupaltogether,asweweredevelopinganidenticalproce-dureforP.putida.Buttheyhavedoneit?rst...
?Thereisagoodpaperheretryingto?ghtitswayoutofapoorlyconstructedmanuscript.
?IamsorrythatIhavespoiledmyXmasholidayswithsuchabadmanuscript.
?Apologiesforthedelay–oursecondwasbornaweekagoandIdidnot?nishthereviewintime.Iwillmakethisatoppriorityearlythiscomingweek.[Nowthatisdedication!Ed.]
?AjewelthattheJournalwillbeproudofformanyyearstocome.
?Greatorganism.Greatscientists.Terriblemanuscript.?Amongthekey?ndingsisthatatrulymind-bogglinglyenormousgene/proteinmaybeinvolvedintheconsor-tium.Letmerepeat:mind-bogglinglyenormous.
?Iamfedupwithpeopleignoringtotallytheinstructionsforauthors.
?ThisyearIhavehadthedubiouspleasureofreviewingalotoftrulyterriblemanuscripts.However,thismanu-scriptwasarealbeautytoreview.PleaseacceptthisASAP.
?TheAbstractdescribesresultsthatIcouldnot?ndintheResultssection.
?Amajorpossibilitywhichhasnotbeendiscussedisthattheorganismsresponsiblesimplydidnotsurvivesam-plingandmicrocosmsetup.Absenceofevidenceisnotevidenceofabsence[stolen–sorry!–fromJAM,fromareviewofapaperofKT,i.e.thistimetheeditoristhevictim].
?Thepapersuffersfromanexcessofunre?neddata[ditto].
?Engineerscanmodeleverythingbutnotalwayssuchmodelscontributetoabetterunderstandingoftheprocess,especiallyiftheengineersdonotunderstandthemicrobiologyandbiochemistrybehindtheprocess.Tocombineamodelbasedonsuchshakyassumptionswithdatatakenfromanexperimentwherethebugshardlygrewatall–thisisreallyacaseofimpudence.?IwonderifyouandIdonothavebetterthingstodothanhelppeoplewhocan’thelpthemselves.
?Ireallythinkitistimeformolecularstudiestouseproperreplicationandnotusetheamountofworkasanexcuseanymore.
?Thisisreallyverydull;anexampleofsomeoneengrossedintaxonomybutnotadaptingtoecology.?Theywerenotthe?rsttohavedonethis,buttheydon’tseemtoknowthat.
?ForsakeoftimeIhavelistedonlyafew(13!)ofthemostglaringerrors.
?ItalsosuffersfromdeathbyDGGEgels(11intotal–aaargh!).
?Itisamazingtoseehowmuchsequencingeffortwasdoneandhowlittlepro?ttakenfromit.
?Idon’tthinktheauthorsunderstoodtheliteraturewellenoughtoperformtherightexperiments.
?Atechnicallyextremelymeticulous(Swissstyle)paper.?InvalidatestheWHO-certi?edparadigmthatE.coliwilldieoffinfreshwaterandthuscanbetakenasasurro-gateparameterforwaterhygiene.
?Meticulouslypresentedmanuscript,almostperfectinstyleandgrammar(neverseeninams.comingfromJapan).ThenIlearntfromp.35that‘thisdocu-menthasbeencheckedbyatleasttwoprofessionaleditors’.
?Ihavefoundthisms.boringtodeath.
?Beautifulmanuscript,important,relevantandentertain-ingtopic.
?Thisisanenormousamountofworkwhichwouldhavebeenavoidedifsomeonehaddonethegenomesequence.
?Iamsorrytosay...butitseemsthatgoodchemistswalkedintotheareaofenvironmentalmicrobiologywithoutanyknowledgeaboutit.
?Thisonealmostkilledme.Iama‘detailperson’,obviously.
?‘Hijacked’isaverydramaticword;maybethebacteriaaremorepolitewiththeirbiosynthesis.
Journalcompilation?2008SocietyforAppliedMicrobiologyandBlackwellPublishingLtd
3426Referees’Quotes–2008
?Ifoundthemanuscripttobewellperformedinallaspects,fromtheexperimentaldesigntothewritingofthemanuscript.IwishallmanuscriptsIreviewwereofthisquality.
?Ididnotexpectthatthearticlewouldtakemesuchalongtimetoreview.Ihadtoreaditoverandover.Ireallywantedtolikeitbut,asyouwillsee,I‘?nallyhadtocanit’[quotesindicateeditorialsubstitution].
?IgotincreasinglyangryduringthetwohoursIdedicatedtothereview.IknowthattheeditorsofEMareverybusybuttheyshouldavoidbeinganauthorofamanu-scriptwritteninsuchastyle.
?ThepeacefulatmospherebetweenChristmasand
NewYearwastransientlydisruptedbyreadingthismanuscript.
PageX,lineYclaimsboth‘rare’and‘unusual.’MadonnaandTonyBlairmightusebothinthesamesentence.
IhopeIwasn’toverlyharsh.
DearEditor,trynottoforcethepoorreviewerstodoaworkwhichovercomestheir?eldofexpertise.Remem-ber:ahappyreviewer(Iamnotsureifreviewerscouldreachanylevelofhappiness)shouldbeabetterreviewer.
IamafraidthatImighthaveproducedsomesentencesforthe‘2008Referees’Quotes’.
?
??
?
Journalcompilation?2008SocietyforAppliedMicrobiologyandBlackwellPublishingLtd,EnvironmentalMicrobiology,10,3425–3426
选题报告一、选题报告要素1.选题名称2.选题的价值3.选题酝酿、形成的过程4.选题的内容和形式设想5.读者对象6.拟请的作者7.时…
该论文采用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…
审稿意见书写审稿对论文的学术水平技术水平以及论文的创新性先进性等进行正确地评价题目摘要图表前言参考文献和正文语法语言组织论文逻辑结…
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…
审稿意见怎么写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…
几年的写论文和审稿心得从硕士到博士,这些年来也小有了一点成果,一篇NANOTECHNOLOGY,两篇CARBON,三篇3.0以下的…
怎样写好论文全国十五、六种学报、杂志审稿占用了我业余生活的大部分时间,每年的审稿量少说有100篇。近年来,觉得稿件质量大不如前。在…
本科毕业生毕业论文评阅意见论文评语论文评语要可参考下列内容简要概述论文的内容学生对论文写作的态度文献综述是否充分论点是否突出内容是…
硕士论文评审意见模板该论文在概述相关学术文献和发展趋势的基础上通过对现状和问题分析提出具有一定理论意义和实际应用价值论文根据该论文…
毕业论文评审意见导师意见范文模板又到一年论文答辩时很多同学需要自己写评审意见导师意见下面列出了我通过收集的一些模板和范围方便大家参…
选题报告一、选题报告要素1.选题名称2.选题的价值3.选题酝酿、形成的过程4.选题的内容和形式设想5.读者对象6.拟请的作者7.时…