審稿注意事項及意見模板.doc

.如何正確審稿1、不要因為寫作水平差就隨便拒稿。2、不要故意寫作者沒有做什么實驗或模擬而拒稿。很多人做研究時，都喜歡把問題簡化，盡量減少干擾因素。只要作者針對某個因素進行了透徹的研究，千萬不能因為沒有考慮某些方面而拒稿。比如做材料研究時，由于很多材料非球形，但做數(shù)值模擬時為了簡化，將材料作為球形來研究，只要利用球形得到的結(jié)果真實，有新意，就接受。在審稿意見里建議作者繼續(xù)做非球形材料。3、炒冷飯的一定要拒稿。為了文章數(shù)量，將自己很多發(fā)表了的論文加以整理，沒有任何新的工作的稿子一定要堅持拒稿。4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。5、不能因為反對自己的觀點而拒稿。模板：審稿意見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. 一般審稿意見至少要包含三條：（1）簡要描述論文研究內(nèi)容和意義，并作出評價。對于其比較好的部分，要給于肯定。（2）針對文章中的內(nèi)容和結(jié)果，指出其具體的不足之處，并談?wù)勀愕目捶?。文章的不足之處有三種層次：第一，論文結(jié)果不正確或有重大失誤；第二，論文缺乏重要的結(jié)果；第三，論文的結(jié)果不夠完善。（3）最后，給出你的綜合評價，接受，修改，還是拒收。如何審稿評審花費的時間與審稿質(zhì)量的提高相關(guān)，但超過3小時則無更大意義。認(rèn)真研讀自己投稿得回的評審意見，學(xué)習(xí)他人如何審稿。比較同一稿件自己的審稿意見和其他審稿人的意見，發(fā)現(xiàn)新的視角。對于有條件的年輕學(xué)者，可以替自己的上級（例如老師、上級醫(yī)師等）草擬審稿意見。做好審稿工作要對同行要有絕對的責(zé)任感，通過同行評閱認(rèn)定高水準(zhǔn)文獻，對科學(xué)進步至關(guān)重要。審稿的質(zhì)量會影響到作者的學(xué)術(shù)態(tài)度和學(xué)術(shù)行為。審稿人面臨的挑戰(zhàn)是，要發(fā)現(xiàn)那些作者本人沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)的東西。這需要對文獻有全面掌握，既熟悉進展，又熟悉經(jīng)典。當(dāng)然，審稿人也會碰到自己不熟悉的知識點，這時可以向他人請教、學(xué)習(xí)，或者謝絕審稿，請編輯另找他人。做好審稿工作需要相當(dāng)大的智力投入，又不能很快得到同行的認(rèn)可。令作者滿意的是文章被接受，而不是審稿質(zhì)量。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表達清楚的評審意見，能夠增加作者的知識，提高作者從事和報道科學(xué)研究的能力。審稿時應(yīng)該對工作充滿耐心、客觀公正地閱讀，對新觀點新方法持開放態(tài)度，又不能“放水”。要提出明確的建議，并有正當(dāng)理由，觀點表達清楚，讓人看得懂；。在提出全面的、明確的觀點之前，需要反復(fù)斟酌。不同稿件需要的時間可能不同，有的3個小時也不一定夠。1接受審稿邀請對于自己感興趣的題目，研究工作在自己的專業(yè)技能之內(nèi)，而且又能拿出時間認(rèn)真審閱時，可考慮接受邀請。對于自己不熟悉的專業(yè)領(lǐng)域，應(yīng)果斷拒絕。只要你說明拒絕的理由，編輯不會認(rèn)為你對審稿不感興趣。2閱讀和評價先花點時間看看摘要，初步了解在實驗設(shè)計、方法、結(jié)果和結(jié)論中，你需要看的重點是什么，特別要看出作者認(rèn)為其工作的重點是什么。提出一個寬泛的問題，帶著問題去看全文：例如，這是一篇關(guān)于方法學(xué)的論文、是病例總結(jié)還是病例報道?與以往的論文相比，本文的新意是什么?然后再仔細(xì)閱讀全文，要看懂；遇到看不懂的地方，要分析原因，是科學(xué)問題令人困惑，還是作者沒有講清楚。不合邏輯或有悖于常識的科學(xué)問題包括：互相矛盾、結(jié)論無根據(jù)、因果關(guān)系（歸因）不當(dāng)、不恰當(dāng)推論、循環(huán)推理、糾纏于瑣碎問題等。至于寫作問題，有的是不會寫或?qū)懖缓茫瑢Υ藨?yīng)明確提出讓作者修改，例如冗余、跑題、術(shù)語不解釋、用詞不準(zhǔn)確、專業(yè)術(shù)語不規(guī)范、縮略語不規(guī)范。行文要求條理清楚，讓讀者跟著自己的思路走。更重要的是要看實驗設(shè)計是否交待清楚，研究的邏輯性結(jié)構(gòu)包括目的、假說、假說的可驗性預(yù)測、結(jié)論等是否完善。重要問題不應(yīng)不予以交代，例如方法學(xué)上的局限性，本研究結(jié)果與其他研究結(jié)果的不一致性或一致性等，都需在討論部分予以說明。論文中還會經(jīng)常碰到一些“低級“的過失誤差，例如百分比加起來不是100，數(shù)字前后不一致等，這些往往很容易逃過審稿人的眼睛！讀完第一遍后，不要急于下結(jié)論。繼續(xù)閱讀第二遍，再對稿件做出評價。首先評價稿件的科學(xué)性，看其科學(xué)性是否正確，特別是推論（論證）的質(zhì)量、科理和知識的運用。是應(yīng)用性研究還是基礎(chǔ)性研究，要考慮對本刊讀者是否適宜。其次要評價稿件的寫作情況，表達是否清晰、準(zhǔn)確、完整；審稿人看起來都費勁，何況其他讀者?當(dāng)然不同作者的寫作風(fēng)格可有不同，也不必千篇一律。看完后要嘗試提出建議了。給編輯的建議要反映出：（1）對稿件最終處理意見的初步看法，即接受還是退稿；（2）在做出上述決定之前，你認(rèn)為需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇論文探討的問題是令人關(guān)注的課題，想法也令人很感興趣，但其科學(xué)性不夠強，那么你就要提出如何改進其科學(xué)性的建議。你可以提出正反兩方面的看法，供編輯決定是否錄用時參考。決定是否接受還要考慮到期刊的發(fā)表率。在很多情況下，審稿人的建議是 “待定”，等待作者對提出的問題給予答復(fù)。對于可能存在嚴(yán)重缺點的稿件，要特別注意給作者答復(fù)的機會；有時他們會很快將問題解決，有時問題并不一定能解決。3撰寫審稿意見給編者的話（致編輯）包括3個部分，文字要精煉，一般不超過三百字：（1）概要，用三四句話說明研究的主題、基本方法、主要發(fā)現(xiàn)，解讀（釋義）作者的主要結(jié)論。這對于梳理審稿人的思路很重要，同時也讓編輯能夠更好地了解以下2部分提出的意見。（2）主要評價和問題。（3）建議，例如：本文提出了什么新的觀點、有何新的發(fā)現(xiàn)、值得進一步修改，等等。給作者的意見（致作者）要更加具體，字?jǐn)?shù)更多一些?；驹瓌t是，審稿人發(fā)現(xiàn)的問題，必須對作者說清楚；不要給予表揚，因為稿件能被接受，作者就夠高興的了；避免指責(zé)，每一篇投稿都是同行長期工作的成果，這完全沒有必要。給作者的意見同樣包括3個部分。（1）概要同 “致編輯”，作者可以獲悉審稿人從其論文中看到了什么，有些可能是作者自己都想不到的，這有助于作者突出重點，如何準(zhǔn)備回復(fù)或修改。（2）主要評價和問題：逐條書寫，要解釋清楚，要有依據(jù)；不要只給予“定性”的陳述，例如不要籠統(tǒng)地說“對照組不恰當(dāng)，”要具體指出問題和理由。對于寫作上的問題，審稿人有時也許會感到“生氣”：文章沒寫好就投稿，太不禮貌了（甚至?xí)f，太不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)了）。 遇到寫作問題，審稿人可具體羅列主要的幾條，并提出修改建議。對于實在太差的，要明確告訴作者請其上級（導(dǎo)師）或有經(jīng)驗的同事幫著修改。（3）次要問題，例如冗余、符號使用不當(dāng)、錯別字等，審稿人一般會籠統(tǒng)地提及需要修改，但如果能按頁碼和分行逐一列出，作者肯定會對你的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)態(tài)度和責(zé)任感表示敬佩。審稿意見的一些套話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?以下是關(guān)于英文投稿過程中編輯給出的意見。12點無輕重主次之分。每一點內(nèi)容由總結(jié)性標(biāo)題和代表性審稿人意見構(gòu)成。1、目標(biāo)和結(jié)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、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分。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、對于研究設(shè)計的rational:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：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、對hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。6、對某個概念或工具使用的rationale/定義概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、對研究問題的定義：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、對claim,如AB的證明，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、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問題：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重視程度）：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、語言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題）：有關(guān)語言的審稿人意見：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.國人一篇文章投Mater.類知名國際雜志，被塞爾維亞一審稿人打25分！個人認(rèn)為文章還是有一些創(chuàng)新的，所以作為審稿人我就給了66分，（這個分正常應(yīng)該足以發(fā)表），提了一些修改意見，望作者修改后發(fā)表！登錄到編輯部網(wǎng)頁一看，一個文章竟然有六個審稿人，詳細(xì)看了下打的分?jǐn)?shù)，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），拒但沒有打分（另一國人審），最后一個沒有回來！兩個拒的是需要我們反思和學(xué)習(xí)的?。ɡㄌ栃斌w內(nèi)容為我注解）Reviewer 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments 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: XXXAffiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript 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),（通常的寫作格式，審稿人實際上很在意的）- 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).（很多人不會寫這個地方，大家多學(xué)習(xí)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，結(jié)果圖放上去就什么都不管了，這是不應(yīng)該的）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.英語寫作要提高（這條很多人的軟肋，大家努力?。㏑eviewer 5Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/AComments to Editor:Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.Name:（國人）Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDear 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 dont 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:（看看總體評價，不達標(biāo)，很多人被這樣郁悶了，當(dāng)然審稿人也有他的道理）1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the authors 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 manus