審稿注意事項和意見模板

1、精品文檔如何正確審稿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 p

2、aper presentsan applicationofreassignedwaveletscalogramforrotorsystemfault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areasbut the paper needs very significantimprovement beforeacceptanceforpublication.My detailed comments are as follows:1. The wavelet method (reassigned

3、wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this waveletmethod isa well-establishedmethod, and thepresent researchis a directapplicationof this method without new contribution in methodological research.2. For the above reason,t

4、hepresentationshouldbefocusedonthe results.Unfortunately,the presentationis far fromacceptableforpublication.The materialwas not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors checkcarefullytheEnglish writingand use standard terminologiesin thetechnical area.3. The title of the pap

5、er 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。1歡迎下載精品文檔（ 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

6、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

7、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(dá)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(dá)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

8、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)。2歡迎下載精品文檔還是病例報道 ?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

9、。 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?對此應(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

10、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(dá)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?？赐旰笠獓L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)

11、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

12、下。3歡迎下載精品文檔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 “

13、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 carefullydone studyand the findingsar

14、e of considerableinterest.A few minor revisions are list below.2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which meritpublication.Forthebenefit ofthereader, however,a number ofpointsneedclarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are givenbelow.3. Althou

15、gh these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and donot advance our knowledge of the subjectsufficientlyto warrantpublicationin PNAS.Wesuggestthatthe authorstrysubmittingtheirfindingsto specialistjournalsuchas 4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data

16、 were added.。4歡迎下載精品文檔5. Thismanuscriptisnot suitableforpublicationin the journalof becausethe 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 cor

17、rection at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.7.We feelthatthispotentially interestingstudyhasbeen marredbyaninabilityto communicate the findingcorrectlyin Englishand shouldliketo suggestthat the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English,prefer

18、able native speaker.8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC,need carefulediting.Attentionshouldbe paidto the wordingofthose partsof theDiscussion of and Summary which have been underlined.9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of thatsu

19、mmarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory,particularly when there is so much variation between assays.10. The conditionof incubationis poorlydefined.What is the temperature?Wereantibody 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 not

20、ed that your manuscript needs careful editing by someonewith expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention toEnglish 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。Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationof

21、replicatesandstatistical methods used in the study.。5歡迎下載精品文檔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 rationalefor the studydesign.4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論 / 夸大成果 / 不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：The conclusions are overstated. F

22、or example, the study did not showifthe side effectsfrom initialcopper burst can be avoid with the polymerformulation.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

23、in this paper in more clear,writeone 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

24、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 closebut not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Autho

25、rs" which shows examples.。6歡迎下載精品文檔Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properlyprepared and formatted.Ifyou are unsure,please consultthe formattingnstructionsto authorsthatare given under the "Instructionsand Forms"button in he upper right-hand corner of the scr

26、een.12、語言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題）：有關(guān)語言的審稿人意見：Itis noted thatyour manuscriptneeds carefuleditingby someonewithexpertise in technical English editing paying particular attention toEnglish grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals andresults of the study are clear to the reader.Theauthorsmusthavet

27、heirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a properreview be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spellingmistakes or are not complete sentences.As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. Thereareproblemswithsentencestruc

28、ture,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.The Englishof your manuscriptmust be improved beforeresubmission.We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who iswell-versed in English or whose native language is English.Please have someonecompetent in the Englishlanguage and the subjectma

29、tter 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

30、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）。7歡迎下載精品文檔Reviewer 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments toEditor:Reviewersarerequiredtoentertheirname,affiliationande-mailaddressbelow.Pleasenotethisisforadministrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.Title (Prof./D

31、r./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXAffiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscriptentitled"Synthesis XXX。" ithas been synthesizedwith a number ofdifferentmethodsand inavariety offorms.Thismanuscriptdoes notbringany new knowledge or dataon materialspropertyand thereforeonlycontributionmay be in

32、 novel preparationmethod, stillthis point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation andwriting is rather poor; there are several statements not supported withdata (forsomesee Remarks 2) and even some flaws(see Remark 3). For thesereasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form.1.

33、 The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but:- the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparationof 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）- ithas to be describedwhy thismethod is betteror differentfr

34、om othermethods,(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSAND DISCUSSION-discussion),- it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXXby other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of th

35、is method (ABSTRACT,。8歡迎下載精品文檔RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).（很多人不會寫這個地方，大家多學(xué)習(xí)?。?. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors - state that XXXXX- state that XXXX- This usuallyhappens withincreasingsinteringtime,but are thereany 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.

36、 Whendiscussingluminescence measurements authorswrite"XXXXXIfthere is second harmonicin excitation beamit will staythere no matterwhat 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，大家努力啊）Reviewer 5Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/AComment

37、s to Editor:Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.Name:（國人）Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDear editor:Thank you for inviting meto evaluatethe articletitled"XXXX“. Inthispaper, the authors investigatedtheinfluencesofsintering conditiononthe crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it is difficu

38、lt for us tounderstand the manuscript because of poor English being used.The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except Englishwriting, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimentalresults don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that thismanuscri

39、pt can not be accepted.The followingarethequestions and some。9歡迎下載精品文檔mistakes in thismanuscript: （看看總體評價，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 investigatedsince 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar

40、journals. What are the novel findings in thepresent work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the primenovelty 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)，中文，英文雙版發(fā)表在網(wǎng)絡(luò)時代太難了，運氣不好審稿人也是國人，敢

41、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文章，哈哈）2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXXBased 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 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。Howeve