SCI英文論文審稿意見匯總

1、SCI英文論文審稿意見匯總英文論文審稿意見匯總以下 12 點(diǎn)無輕重主次之分。每一點(diǎn)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 intechnical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, andsentence structure so that the goals and results of the s

2、tudy 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 me thodsused in the study Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould be provided 3、對丁研究設(shè)計的 rationale：Also, there are few explanations of the r

3、ationale 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 effectsfrom initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、對 hypothesis 的清晰界定:A hypothesis needs to be presentedc6、對某個概念或匸具使用的 rationale/定義概念：What was

4、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 definethe problem8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫 1 iterature review：The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、對 claim,如 AB 的證明，verification：work, so it

5、 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 completelycorrect I have attached a pdf file with which shows ex

6、amples Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared andformatted If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors thatare given under the right*hand corner of the scree n.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

7、 editing by someone with expertisein technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, andsentence structure so that the goals and resuIts of the study are clear to the reader The authors must have their work reviewed by a propertranslation/reviewing service before

8、submission; only then can a proper review be performedMost sentences contain grammaticl and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentencesAs presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journa1 There are pro blemswith sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.The English of you

9、r manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well- versed i n Englishor 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 corre

10、ct it. ? the quality of English needsimproving 來口編輯的鼓勵：There is no experimental comparison ofthe algorithm with previously knownEncouragement from reviewers：I would be very glad to rereview the paper in greater depth once it has be en editedbecause the subject is interesting There is continued inter

11、est in your manuscript titled itted to the Journal ofBiomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat erials The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication. 本文來自CSDN 博客，轉(zhuǎn)載請標(biāo)明出處：http：/blog csdn net/chenyusiyuan/archiv 已/2021/12/03/3437577 aspx老外寫的英文綜述文章的審稿意見Ms. Ref. No. :

12、 * Title: *Materials Science and Engineering Dear Dr. *,Reviewers have now commented on your paper You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript If youare prepared to undertdke the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance, reviewers* comment

13、s are appended below Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods forthe synthesis of Ag nanoparticles As such, the matter is of interest, however the papersuffers for two serious limits:1)the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2)some Figures

14、must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesisof anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), whichhas been largely overlooked throughout the paper ；Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted forpublicatio

15、n in this journal來源:http：/www. sciencenet. cn/blog/rensl. htm 這是一篇全過程我均比較了解的 投稿，稿件的內(nèi)容我認(rèn)為是相當(dāng)不錯的，中文版投稿丁業(yè)內(nèi)有較高影響的某核心期刊，并 很快得到發(fā)表。其時我作為審稿人之一，除了提出一些修改建議外，還特建議了 5 篇應(yīng)增 加的參考文獻(xiàn)，該文正式發(fā)表時共計有參考文獻(xiàn) 25 篇。作者或許看到審稿意見還不錯，因此決意嘗試向美國某學(xué)會主辦的一份英文刊投稿。 幾經(jīng)修改和補(bǔ)充后，請一位英文“功底較好的中國人翻譯，投稿后約3 周，便返回了三份審稿意見。從英文刊的反饋意見看，這篇稿件中最嚴(yán)重的問題是文獻(xiàn)綜述和引用不

16、夠，其次是語 言表達(dá)方面的欠缺，此外是論證過程和結(jié)果展示形式方面的不足。感想：一篇好的論文，從內(nèi)容到形式都需要精雕細(xì)琢。附 1：中譯審稿意見審稿意 見一 1(1)英文表達(dá)太差，盡管意思大致能表達(dá)清楚，但文法錯誤太多。(2)文獻(xiàn)綜述較 差，觀點(diǎn)或論斷應(yīng)有文獻(xiàn)支持。(3) 論文讀起來像是 XXX 的廣告，不知道作者與 XXX 是否沒有關(guān)聯(lián)。(4) 該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多 XX 采取此模式(如美國地球物理 學(xué)會)，作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析 XXX 運(yùn)作模式的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。(5) 該模式也不是作者所說的那樣成功(審稿人結(jié)合論文中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析)審 稿意見一 2(1) 缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)引用(如

17、)。(2) 寫作質(zhì)量:達(dá)不到美國學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。審稿意見一 3(1)作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻(xiàn)。(2)缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。(3) 需要采用表格和圖件形式展示(數(shù)據(jù))材料。附 2：英文審稿意見(略有刪節(jié)) Reviewer： 1There are many things wrong with this paper.The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too manysentences are correct.The literature review is poor. The

18、 paper is riddled withassertions and claims that should be supported by references The paper reads asan 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 manyXX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author shouldsurvey 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