一些英文審稿意見及回復(fù)的模板

1、些英文審稿意見的模板最近在審一篇英文稿，第一次做這個(gè)工作，還有點(diǎn)不知如何表達(dá)。幸虧遇上我的 處女審稿，我想不會(huì)槍斃它的，給他一個(gè)major revision后接收吧。呵呵網(wǎng)上找來一些零碎的資料參考參考。+1、目標(biāo)和結(jié)果不清晰。It is no ted that your manu scri pt n eeds careful edit ing by some one with exp ertise in tech ni cal En glish edit ing paying p articular atte nti on to En glish grammar, sp elli ng, an

2、d 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 explan atio n of why the authors did these various exp erime nts should be pro vi

3、ded.3、對(duì)于研究設(shè)計(jì)的rationale:Also, there are few explan ati ons of the ratio nale for the study desig n.4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：The con clusi ons are overstated. For exa mp le, the study did not showif the side effects from initialcopper burst can be avoid with the polymerformulatio n.5、對(duì)hypo thesis的清晰界定：A hyp

4、o thesis n eeds to be p rese nted。6對(duì)某個(gè)概念或工具使用的ratio nale/定義概念:What was the rati on ale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、對(duì)研究問題的定義：Try to set the p roblem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one secti on to defi ne the p roblem8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫literature review:The topic is no vel but the app

5、licati on prop osed is not so no vel.9、對(duì) claim,如 A> B 的證明，verification: There is no exp erime ntal comp aris on of the algorithm with p reviously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on prev ious work.10、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問題：MNQ is easier than the primitive P NQS, how

6、 to p rove that.11、格式（重視程度）：In additi on, the list of refere nces is not in our style. It is close butnot completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "InstructionsforAuthors" which shows exa mp les.Before submitt ing a revisio n be sure that your material is prop erlyprep ared and

7、formatted. If you are un sure, pl ease con sult the formatt ing n struct ionsto authors that are give n un der the "I nstruct ionsand Forms"butt on in he upper right-ha nd corner of the scree n.12、語言冋題（出現(xiàn)最多的冋題）：有關(guān)語言的審稿人意見：It is no ted that your manu scri pt n eeds careful edit ing by some

8、one with exp ertise in tech ni cal En glish edit ing paying p articular atte nti on to En glish grammar, sp elli ng, 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 propertran slatio n/reviewi ng service before

9、submissi on; only the n can a proper review be p erformed. Most senten ces con ta in grammatical an d/or sp elli ng mistakes or are not comp lete senten ces.As p rese nted, the writi ng is not acce ptable for the journ al. There are p roblems with sentence structure, verb ten se, and clause con stru

10、cti on.The En glish of your manu scri pt must be impro ved before resubmissi on. We stro ngly suggest that you obtai n assista nee from a colleague who is well-versed in En glish or whose n ative Ian guage is En glish.PI ease have some one comp ete nt in the En glish Ian guage and the subject matter

11、 of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of En glish n eeds improving.作為審稿人，本不應(yīng)該把編輯部的這些信息公開（冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?。矣X得有些意見值得廣大投稿人注意，就貼出來吧，當(dāng)然，有關(guān)審稿人的名字，Email，文章題名信息等就都刪除了,以免造成不必要的麻煩！希望朋友們多評(píng)價(jià)，其他有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的審稿人能常來指點(diǎn)大家!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(gè)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(gè)分正常應(yīng)該足以發(fā)表），提了一些修改 意見

12、，望作者修改后發(fā)表！登錄到編輯部網(wǎng)頁一看，一個(gè)文章竟然有六個(gè)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(gè)沒有回來！兩個(gè)拒的是需要我們反思和學(xué)習(xí)的!（括號(hào)斜體內(nèi)容為我注解）Reviewer 4Reviewer Recomme ndatio n Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manu scri pt Rat ing: 25Comme nts to Editor: Reviewers are required to en ter their n ame, affilia

13、tio n and e-mail address below. PI ease n ote this is for adm ini strative purpo ses and will not be see n by the author.Title (P rof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXAffiliati on: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。" it has been synthesized with a nu mber of differ

14、e nt methods and in a variety of forms. Thismanuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contributionmaybe in novel preparation method, stillthis point is not elaborated prop erly (see Remark 1). Prese ntati on and writi ng is rather poor; there are se

15、veral stateme nts not supp orted withdata (for somesee Remarks 2) and even someflaws (see Remark 3). For these reas ons I suggest to reject paper in the p rese nt form.1. The paper describes a new method for prep arati on of XXXX, but:-the new method has to be comp ared with other methods for prep a

16、rati onof XXXXpo wders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-discussio n),(通常的寫作格式，審稿人實(shí)際上很在意的)-it has to be described why this method is better or differentfrom othermethods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussi on),-it has to be added in the manuscrip

17、t what kind of XXXXXX)y other methods com pared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussi on),-it has to be outli ned what is the ben efit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).(很多人不會(huì)寫這個(gè)地方，大家多學(xué)習(xí)啊)2. When discussi ng XRD data XXXauth

18、ors-state that XXXXX-state that XXXX-This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to p rese nt, den sity, p article 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. Whendiscussing luminescenee measurements authors write "XXXXXIf there is sec ond harm onic in excitati on beam

19、it will stay there no matter what type of material one inv estigates!（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 Recomme ndatio n Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Ma nuscri pt Rati ng: N/A Comme nts to Editor:Title （P rof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.Name:（國人）Affiliati on: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDe

20、ar editor:Thank you for invitingmeto evaluate the article titled "XXXX . In thispaper, the authors in vestigatedthe in flue nces of sin teri ngcon diti on onthe crystal structure and XXXXXX ， However, it is difficult for us to un dersta nd the manu scri pt because of poor En glish being used.Th

21、e text is not well arran ged and the logic is not clear. Exce pt En glish writi ng, there are many mistakes in the manu scri pt and the exp erime ntal results don't show good and new results. So I recomme nd to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and som

22、e mistakes in this manu scri pt:（看看總體評(píng)價(jià)，不達(dá)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 bee n inv estigated since1997 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 s

23、yn thesis method and lumin esce nee prop erties rep orted in this manu scri pt did n't supply eno ugh evide nee to support the p rime no velty stateme nt.（這位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻譯了一邊就敢投國際知名 雜志，而且沒有新的創(chuàng)新！朋友們也看到了，一稿多發(fā)，中文，英文雙版發(fā)表在網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代太難了，運(yùn)氣不好審稿人也是國人，敢情曾經(jīng)看過你的文章，所以必死無疑，這位作者老兄就命運(yùn) 差了，剛好被審稿人看見，所以毫無疑問被拒，（

24、呵呵，我 97年剛上初一沒見 到這個(gè)文章，哈哈）2. In P age 5, the author men ti oned that: "XXXX Based on our kno wiedge, "sin teri ng" describes the p rocess whe n the po wders become ceramics. So,I think the word "syn thesis" should be better in stead of "sin teri ng"here.Sec ond, the

25、XRD p atter ns did n't show obvious differe nee betwee n three "si nteri ng" temp eratures of 700, 800 and 900 ?C.（作者老兄做工作太不仔細(xì)了，蟲子們可別犯?。?. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。 However, the author did n't supply the morp hologies of p articles at differe nt syn thesiz

26、 ing temp eratures. What are the exp erime ntal results or the refere nces which support the author's con clusi on that the XXXX prop erties would be in flue need by the p article size?（作者仍在瞎說，這個(gè)問題我也指出了，不光我還是看著國人的份上讓修改， 加很多東西，說實(shí)話，文章看的很累很累）4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my kno wledge, after the m

27、illing, theparticlessize will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy thehost structure?（蟲子們自己注意）5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, becauseauthor add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra are n ot measured by ordinary methods.（都是老問題，

28、不說了）好東西原文地址：對(duì)英文審稿意見的回復(fù) 作者：海天奧博一篇稿子從醞釀到成型歷經(jīng)艱辛，投出去之后又是漫長(zhǎng)的等待，好容易收到編輯的 回信，得到的往往又是審稿人不留情面的一頓狂批。這時(shí)候，如何有策略有技巧的 回復(fù)審稿人就顯得尤為重要。好的回復(fù)是文章被接收的重要砝碼，而不恰當(dāng)?shù)幕貜?fù) 輕則導(dǎo)致再次修改從而拖延發(fā)稿時(shí)間，重則導(dǎo)致文章被拒，前功盡棄。下面把我平 時(shí)總結(jié)的一些答復(fù)審稿人的策略和寫回復(fù)信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，絕對(duì)服從編輯的意見。在審稿人給出各自的意見之后，編輯一般不會(huì)再提出 自己的意見。但是，編輯一旦提出某些意見，就意味著他認(rèn)為這是文章里的重大缺 陷，至少是不合他的口味。這時(shí)，

29、我們唯一能夠做的只能是服從。因?yàn)楫吘故侨思?掌握著生殺予奪的大權(quán)。第二，永遠(yuǎn)不要跟審稿人爭(zhēng)執(zhí)。跟審稿人起爭(zhēng)執(zhí)是非常不明智的一件事情。審稿人 意見如果正確那就不用說了，直接照辦就是。如果不正確的話，也大可不必在回復(fù) 中冷嘲熱諷，心平氣和的說明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血?dú)夥絼?，被人拍了?dāng) 然不爽，被人錯(cuò)拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名門正派里的弟子，看到一審結(jié)果是 major而不是minor本來就已經(jīng)很不爽了，難得抓住審稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出來 打死。有次審稿，一個(gè)審稿人給的意見是增加兩篇參考文獻(xiàn)（估計(jì)也就是審稿人自 己的文章啦），結(jié)果作者在回復(fù)中寫到，maki ng a refere nee is

30、 n ot charity!看到之后我當(dāng)時(shí)就笑噴了，可以想象審稿人得被噎成什么樣。正如大家所想的那樣， 這篇稿子理所當(dāng)然的被拒了，雖然后來經(jīng)編輯調(diào)解改成了major revision ，但畢竟耽誤的是作者自己的時(shí)間不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所謂修改就是對(duì)文章內(nèi)容進(jìn)行的修改和補(bǔ)充, 所謂argue就是在回復(fù)信中對(duì)審稿人的答復(fù)。這其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是 容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟審稿人argue。對(duì)于語法、拼寫錯(cuò)誤、discussion，這樣既照顧到了某些詞匯的更換、對(duì)某些公式和圖表做進(jìn)一步解釋等相對(duì)容易做到的修改，一定要 一毫不差的根據(jù)審稿意見照做。而對(duì)于新

31、意不足、創(chuàng)新性不夠這類根本沒法改的， 還有諸如跟算法A，B, C, D做比較，補(bǔ)充大量實(shí)驗(yàn)等短時(shí)間內(nèi)根本沒法完成的任務(wù), 我們則要有理有據(jù)的argue。在Argue的時(shí)候首先要肯定審稿人說的很對(duì)，他提出 的方法也很好，但本文的重點(diǎn)是 blablabla ，跟他說的不是一回事。然后為了表示 對(duì)審稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段這方面的 審稿人的面子，編輯那也能交待的過去。minor,意見只有寥寥數(shù)行,第四，聰明的掌握修改時(shí)間。拿到審稿意見，如果是那當(dāng)然會(huì)情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至幾小時(shí)搞定修改稿。這時(shí)候，問題在于要 不要馬上投回去了？我的意見是放一放，多看一看，兩個(gè)星期之后再投出去。這樣 首

32、先避免了由于大喜過望而沒能及時(shí)檢查出的小毛病，還不會(huì)讓編輯覺得你是在敷 衍他。如果結(jié)果是 major，建議至少放一個(gè)月再投出去，顯得比較鄭重。上面是一些一般性的答復(fù)審稿人的策略，在實(shí)際中的應(yīng)用還需要大家見仁見智。下 面談?wù)劥饛?fù)信的寫法。寫答復(fù)信的唯一目的是讓編輯和審稿人一目了然的知道我們做了哪些修改。因此， 所有的格式和寫法都要圍繞這一目的。一般來說可以把答復(fù)信分成三部分，即Listof Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分 List ofActio ns的作用是簡(jiǎn)明扼要的列出所有修改的條目，讓編輯和審稿人在第一時(shí)間

33、對(duì) 修改量有個(gè)概念，同時(shí)它還充當(dāng)著修改目錄的作用，詳見下面的例子。剩下的兩部 分是分別對(duì)編輯和審稿人所做的答復(fù)，格式可以一樣，按照“意見”-“ argue”（如果有的話）-“修改”這樣逐條進(jìn)行。清楚醒目起見，可以用不同字體分別標(biāo)出， 比如“意見”用italic ，“argue”正常字體，“修改”用bold。下面舉例說明各部分的寫法和格式。編輯意見：請(qǐng)?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距。審稿人1：意見1:置疑文章的創(chuàng)新性，提出相似的工作已經(jīng)被 A和B做過。 意見2:算法表述不明確。意見3 :對(duì)圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。審稿人2：意見1 :意見2:圖2太小。第3頁有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。根據(jù)上面的答復(fù)策略，我們準(zhǔn)備對(duì)除1號(hào)審稿

34、人意見1之外的所有意見進(jìn)很顯然，行相應(yīng)改動(dòng)，而對(duì)1.1采取argue為主的策略。答復(fù)如下:List of ActionsLOA1: The revised manu scri pt is double sp aced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have bee n added in p age 3.LOA3: A p aragra ph has bee n added in p age 5 to further explain the algorithmLOA4: Expla

35、n ati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3 have bee n added in p age 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has bee n enl arged.LOA6: All typos have bee n removed.Respon ses to Editor請(qǐng)?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距。Wehave double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.Respon ses to ReviewersTo Reviewer 1:意見1:置疑文章的創(chuàng)新性，提出相似的工作已經(jīng)

36、被A和B做過。Thank you for pointing this out. A and B' s research groups have doneblablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the followi ng discussi on on this issue in

37、 our revised manu scri pt, see LOA2.“blablablabla（此處把A和B的工作做一個(gè)review，并提出自己工作和他們的區(qū) 別之處）”意見2:算法表述不明確。Wehave added the followi ngdiscussi on to further exp lai n algorithm *, seeLOA3.“blablablabla（此處進(jìn)一步解釋該算法）”意見3:對(duì)圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。Wehave added the follow ingexplan ati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3, see LOA3

38、.“blablablabla （圖3圖例的解釋）”To Reviewer 2:意見1:圖2太小。We have enl arged Figure 2, see LOA 4.意見2:第3頁有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。We have removed all typ os, see LOA5.總之，寫答復(fù)信的宗旨就是用最少的時(shí)間和工作量達(dá)到論文被接收的目的。這里權(quán) 當(dāng)是拋磚引玉，希望和大家多多交流。htt p:/emuch. net/bbs/viewthread. php ?tid=1493261SCI投稿信件的一些套話（整理）一、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defe ndi ML:by - which I sh

39、ould like to submit for possibI am sending a manu scri pt en titled p ublicati on in the journal of -. Yours sin cerely2. Dear Dr. A:by sb, which we are submitti ng for p ublicati on inEn closed is a manu scri pt en titledjournal of - . We have chose n this journal because it deals with - . We belie

40、ve that sth w be of interest to the journal' s readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Pl ease find en closed for your review an orig inal research article,“” by sb. All authave read and app rove this vers ion of the article, and due care has bee n take n to en sureintegrity of the work. No part of this paper has

41、 published or submitted elsewhere. No con' of in terest exits in the submissi on of this manu scri pt, and we have attached to this lethe sig ned letter gran ti ng us p ermissi on to use Figure 1 from ano ther source.We app reciate your con siderati on of our manu scri pt, and we look forward to

42、 receivi ng comm from the reviewers.二、詢問有無收到稿件Dear Editors,We dis patched our manu scri pt to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, rec ack no wledgeme nt of their safe arrival. We fear that may have bee n lost and should be grat if you would let us know whether or not you have receive

43、d them. If not, wewill send our manus aga in. Thank you in adva nee for your help.三、詢問論文審查回音Dear Editors ，It is more tha n 12 weeks since I submitted our manu scri pt (No: ) for p ossible p ublicatioyour journ al. I have not yet received a reply and am won deri ng whether you have reache decision.I

44、should appreciated your lettingmeknow what you have decided as soon as possi四、關(guān)于論文的總體審查意見1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of con siderable in terest. A few m revisi on are list below.2. This is a well-writte n paper containing in teresti ng results which merit p ublicati on.the

45、 ben efit of the reader, however, a nu mber of points n eed clarify ing and certa in statemrequire further justificati on. There are give n below.3. Although these observati on are in teresti ng, they are rather limited and do not adva neekno wledge of the subject sufficie ntly to warra nt p ublicat

46、i on in PNAS. We suggest that authors try submitt ing their findings to sp ecialist jo urnal 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 maobservati on it describe was

47、rep orted 3 years ago in a repu table journal of -.6. Pl ease ask some one familiar with En glish lan guage to help you rewrite this paper. As will see, I have made some correcti on at the begi nning of the paper where some syn tax is satisfactory.to commu7. Wefeel that this poten tiallyin teresti n

48、g study has bee n marred by an in abilitythe finding correctly in En glish and should like to suggest that the authors seek the ad of some one with a good kno wledge of En glish, p referable n ative sp eaker.of and Su8. The word ing and style of some sect ion, p articularly those concerning HP LC, n

49、 eed car editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion which have bee n un derl in ed.9. P relim inary exp erime nts only have bee n done and with exce pti on of that summarized in T2, none has bee n rep eated. This is clearly un satisfactory, p articularly whe n

50、there is so variati on betwee n assays.10. The con diti on of in cubati on are po orly defi ned. What is the temp erature? Were anti used?五、給編輯的回信1. In reply to the referee' s main criticism of pap er, it is po ssible to say thatOne minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra compo s

51、iti on of the react ion mix in Figure 1. This has now bee n corrected. Further minor cha nges had bee n made on p age 3, p arag 1 (li ne 3-8) and 2 (li ne 6-11). These do not affect our interp retati on of the result.2. I have read the referee ' s comments very carefully and conclude that the pa

52、per hasrejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxi table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity ra than an error or omissi on.3. Thank you for your letter of- and for the referee ' s comments concerni

53、ng our manuscentitled “” . Wehave studied their comments carefullyand have madecorrection which wemeet with their app roval.4. I en closed a revised manu scri pt which in cludes a report of additi onal exp erime nts don the referee ' s suggesti on. You will see that our orig inal findings are co

54、n firmed.5. We are sending the revised manu scri pt accord ing to the comme nts of the reviewers. Rev p orti on are un derl ined in red.6. We found the referee ' s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript7. We are pl eased to note the favorable comme nts of reviewers in their openin

55、g sentenc8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pl eased to lear n that our manu scri pt is acce pt for p ublicati on in Can cer Research with minor revisi on.9. We have therefore compl eted a further series of exp erime nts, the result of which arsummarized in Table 5. From this we con elude that intrin sic factor is not acco unt.of the Paof the c10. Wedeleted the releva nt p assage since they are not esse ntialto the contents11. I feel that the reviewer' s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result fro