一些英文審稿意見(jiàn)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(lái)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 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(duì)于研究設(shè)計(jì)的rationale: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 showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、對(duì)hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。6、對(duì)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(duì)研究問(wèn)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(duì)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(wèn)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(yǔ)言問(wèn)題（出現(xiàn)最多的問(wèn)題）：有關(guān)語(yǔ)言的審稿人意見(jiàn)：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. 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(jué)得有些意見(jiàn)值得廣大投稿人注意，就貼出來(lái)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(lái)指點(diǎn)大家！國(guó)人一篇文章投Mater.類知名國(guó)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(jiàn)，望作者修改后發(fā)表！登錄到編輯部網(wǎng)頁(yè)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(méi)有打分（另一國(guó)人審），最后一個(gè)沒(méi)有回來(lái)！兩個(gè)拒的是需要我們反思和學(xué)習(xí)的?。ɡㄌ?hào)斜體內(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(shí)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(huì)寫這個(gè)地方，大家多學(xué)習(xí)?。?. 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(yǔ)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(guó)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(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 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 manuscript didnt 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(guó)際知名雜志，而且沒(méi)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(guó)人，敢情曾經(jīng)看過(guò)你的文章，所以必死無(wú)疑，這位作者老兄就命運(yùn)差了，剛好被審稿人看見(jiàn)，所以毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)被拒，（呵呵，我97年剛上初一沒(méi)見(jiàn)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 should be better instead of sintering here. Second, the XRD patterns didnt show obvious difference between three sintering temperatures of 70