一些英文審稿意見與回復(fù)的模板

1、一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 noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence struct

2、ure 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(jì)的rationale

3、:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸地述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif 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、

4、對某個(gè)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A

5、B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 i

6、s 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 nstructio

7、ns 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 Englis

8、h 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

9、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 assist

10、ance 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. 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)?。?，但我覺得有些意見值得廣大投稿人注意，就

11、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，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)斜體容為我注解）Revie

12、wer 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXA

13、ffiliation: 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 p

14、reparation 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.

15、 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(shí)際上很在意的）- it has to be described why this method is better or differe

16、nt 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 th

17、e benefit 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 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

18、，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

19、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

20、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 don't show good and new results. So I r

21、ecommend 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(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 been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works

22、had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.（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)，

23、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，（呵呵，我97年剛上初一沒見到這個(gè)文章，哈哈）2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" sh

24、ould be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures 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 didn't supply

25、 the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particle 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，添加很多東西，說實(shí)話，文章看的很累很累）4. XXXXXXXXXXXX

26、XXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?（蟲子們自己注意）5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra

27、are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老問題，不說了）好東西 原文地址：對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

28、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)，我們唯一能夠做的只能是服從。因?yàn)楫吘故侨思艺莆罩鷼⒂鑺Z的大權(quán)。第二，永遠(yuǎn)不要跟審稿人爭執(zhí)。跟審稿人起爭執(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

29、作者在回復(fù)中寫到，making a reference is not 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。所謂修改就是對文章容進(jìn)行的修改和補(bǔ)充，所謂argue就是在回復(fù)信中對審稿人的答復(fù)。這其有文章可做，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。對于語法、拼寫錯(cuò)誤、某些詞匯的更換、對某些公式和圖表做進(jìn)一步解釋等相對容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根據(jù)審稿意見照做。而

30、對于新意不足、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，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。然后為了表示對審稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段這方面的discussion，這樣既照顧到了審稿人的面子，編輯那也能交待的過去。第四，聰明的掌握修改時(shí)間。拿到審稿意見，如果是minor，意見只有寥寥數(shù)行，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

31、后再投出去。這樣首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List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是簡明扼要的列出所有修改的條目，讓編輯和審稿人在

32、第一時(shí)間對修改量有個(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?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：對圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。審稿人2：意見1：圖2太小。意見2：第3頁有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。很顯然，根據(jù)上面的答復(fù)策略，我們準(zhǔn)備對除1號(hào)審稿人意見

33、1之外的所有意見進(jìn)行相應(yīng)改動(dòng)，而對1.1采取argue為主的策略。答復(fù)如下：List of ActionsLOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm *.LOA4: Explanations of th

34、e legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.LOA6: All typos have been removed.=分頁=Responses to Editor請?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距。We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.=分頁=Responses 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)被A和B做過。Thank y

35、ou for pointing this out. A and Bs research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and Bs work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscrip

36、t, 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。We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm *, see LOA3.“blablablabla（此處進(jìn)一步解釋該算法）”意見3：對圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.“blablablabla（圖3圖例的解釋）”=分頁=

37、To Reviewer 2:意見1：圖2太小。We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.意見2：第3頁有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。We have removed all typos, see LOA5.=分頁=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。SCI投稿信件的一些套話(整理)一、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by which I should like to submit for possible public

38、ation in the journal of - .Yours sincerely2. Dear Dr. A:Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journals readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Pleas

39、e find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the sub

40、mission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.二、詢問有無收到稿件Dear Editors,We dispatched our manus

41、cript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your

42、help.三、詢問論文審查回音Dear Editors，It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as poss

43、ible.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 considerable interest. A few minor revision 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 an

44、d 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 s

45、pecialist 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 fa

46、miliar 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 Eng

47、lish 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 Di

48、scussion 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 are

49、poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?五、給編輯的回信1. In reply to the referees main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor

50、changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referees comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not inc

51、lude a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3. Thank you for your letter of and for the referees comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made corre

52、ction which we hope meet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referees suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed.5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers

53、. Revised portion are underlined in red.6. We found the referees comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for

54、 publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.11. I feel that the reviewers comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.12. We would have in