英文論文審稿意見匯總

英文論文審稿意見匯總以下12點無輕重主次之分。每一點內(nèi)容由總結(jié)性標題和代表性審稿人意見構(gòu)成。1、目標和結(jié)果不清晰。ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.2、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分。Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.3、對于研究設計的rationale:Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴謹：Theconclusionsareoverstated.Forexample,thestudydidnotshowifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.5、對hypothesis的清晰界定：Ahypothesisneedstobepresented。6、對某個概念或工具使用的rationale/定義概念：Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?7、對研究問題的定義：Trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫literaturereview:Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、對claim,如A〉B的證明，verification:Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.10、嚴謹度問題：MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.11、格式（重視程度）：Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples.Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted.Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"InstructionsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.12、語言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題）：有關(guān)語言的審稿人意見：ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.Thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.來自編輯的鼓勵：Encouragementfromreviewers:Iwouldbeverygladtore-reviewthepaperingreaterdepthonceithasbeeneditedbecausethesubjectisinteresting.Thereiscontinuedinterestinyourmanuscripttitled"???…白whbchittedtotheJournalofBiomedicalMaterialsResearch:PartB-AppliedBiomaterials.?TheSubmissionhasbeengreatlyimprovedandisworthyofpublication.老外寫的英文綜述文章的審稿意見Ms.Ref.No.:******Title:******MaterialsScienceandEngineeringDearDr.******,Reviewershavenowcommentedonyourpaper.Youwillseethattheyareadvisingthatyoureviseyourmanuscript.Ifyouarepreparedtoundertaketheworkrequired,Iwouldbepleasedtoreconsidermydecision.Foryourguidance,reviewers'commentsareappendedbelow.Reviewer#1:Thisworkproposesanextensivereviewonmicromulsion-basedmethodsforthesynthesisofAgnanoparticles.Assuch,thematterisofinterest,howeverthepapersuffersfortwoseriouslimits:theoverallqualityoftheEnglishlanguageisratherpoor;someFiguresmustbeselectedfrompreviousliteraturetodiscussalsothesynthesisofanisotropicallyshapedAgnanoparticles(thereareseveralexamplespublished),whichhasbeenlargelyoverlookedthroughoutthepaper.;Oncetheaboveconcernsarefullyaddressed,themanuscriptcouldbeacceptedforpublicationinthisjournal這是一篇全過程我均比較了解的投稿，稿件的內(nèi)容我認為是相當不錯的，中文版投稿于業(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篇應增加的參考文獻，該文正式發(fā)表時共計有參考文獻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會主辦的一份英文刊投稿。幾經(jīng)修改和補充后，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，這篇稿件中最嚴重的問題是文獻綜述和引用不夠，其次是語言表達方面的欠缺，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琢。附1：中譯審稿意見審稿意見一1英文表達太差，盡管意思大致能表達清楚，但文法錯誤太多。文獻綜述較差，觀點或論斷應有文獻支持。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)。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(如美國地球物理學會)，作者應詳加調(diào)查并分析XXX運作模式的創(chuàng)新點。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缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻引用(如…)。寫作質(zhì)量達不到美國學術(shù)期刊的標準。審稿意見一3作者應著重指出指出本人的貢獻。缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學分析。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:1Therearemanythingswrongwiththispaper.TheEnglishisverybad.Althoughthemeaningisbyandlargeclear,nottoomanysentencesarecorrect.Theliteraturereviewispoor.Thepaperisriddledwithassertionsandclaimsthatshouldbesupportedbyreferences.ThepaperreadsasanadvertisementforXXX.ItisnotclearthattheauthorisindependentofXXX.TheAAmodelofXXXisnotasinnovativeastheauthorclaims.TherearenowmanyXXthatfollowthismodel(AmericanGeophysicalUnion,forexample),andtheauthorshouldsurveythesemodeltoseewhichonefirstintroducedtheelementsoftheXXXmodel.Themodelisalsonotassuccessfulastheauthorclaims.Overall,thepresentationandthecontentsofthepapercanonlymeanthatIrejectthatthepaperberejected.Reviewer:2Thearetwomajorproblemswiththispaper:Itismissingthecontextof(andcitationsto)whatisnowknowasthe"two-sided"marketliteratureincludingthatdirectlyrelatedto…(e.g.Braunstein,JASIS1977;Economides&Katsanakas,Mgt.Sci.,2006;McCabe&Snyder,B.E.JEconAnalysis,2007).ThewritingqualityisnotuptothestandardofaUSscholarlyjournal.Reviewer:3Theauthorshouldaccentuatehiscontributionsinthismanuscript.Itlacksanalyticalmethodologiestosupportauthor’sdiscoveries.Descriptionstylemateriallikethismanuscriptrequiresstructuredtables&figuresforbetterpresentations.OurJPCApaperwerepeerreviewedbytworeviewers,andtheircommentsareasfollows:TheCommentsbytheFirstReviewerEditor:MichaelA.DuncanReviewer:68ManuscriptNumber:jp067440iManuscriptTitle:RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypesCorrespondingAuthor:YuRecommendation:Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.AdditionalComments:Inthepresentworktheauthorsintroduceanewenergy-basedaromaticitymeasure.Referredasrestrictedgeometryoptimization,theextrastabilizationenergy(ESE)iscalculatedbymeansofanenergyschemeinwhichthedifferentdoublebondsarelocalized.Thismethodologyisappliedtodifferentsetsofaromaticsystems,andtheresultsarecomparedtopreviousalreadyexistingschemes.Thisprocedureseemstoworkbetterthanpreviousones,howeveritmustbeunderlinedthatwithamuchgreatercomplexity.Itavoidshavingtochooseareferencestructure,anditisworthnoticingthatbenzeneappearstobethemostaromaticsystem.Thusthemethodpresentedmightmeananewcontributiontothedifferentaromacitycriteria,howeverbeforeacceptanceforpublicationIwouldrecommendimportantchangestobetakenintoaccountinthemanuscript.Thenewmethodusedisnotpresentedinacomprehensibleway.InthesecondparagraphoftheIntroductiontheauthorsshouldalreadydescribeit,andnotfirstpresentingtheresultsforbenzeneandnotgoingintothemethodtillthesecondsection.Theformulasusedmustbedescribedpreciselyaswell.SoIwouldrecommendthatbeforeacceptancethemanuscriptshouldberewritteninordertomakeitmorecomprehensiblenotonlytophysicalchemistsbutalsototheexperimentalchemicalcommunity,andatthesametimetoimprovetheEnglishused.Otherminorpointsare:-FirstlineofIntroduction:aromaticityisoneofthemostimportantconceptsinorganicchemistry,butmostoforganiccompoundsarenotaromatic.-Introduction,line4:noticethatonlyenergeticwaysofevaluatingaromaticityarementioned,howevergeometry-based(HOMA),magnetic-based(NICS)andelectronic-based(SCI,PDI)methodsarealsoimportant,andthispointshouldbepointedout.-Section3.1,lastlineoffirstparagraph:isB3LYPchosenjustbecauseitgivessimilarresultstoHFandMP2?Thisshouldbepointedoutinthemanuscript.-Enlargedescriptioninpoint3.4.1bygoingdeeperintothedatainFigure8.ReviewSentDate:18-Dec-2006a、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上、上vt>個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個個Editor:MichaelA.DuncanReviewer:67ManuscriptNumber:jp067440iManuscriptTitle:RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypesCorrespondingAuthor:YuRecommendation:Thepaperisprobablypublishable,butshouldbereviewedagaininrevisedformbeforeitisaccepted.AdditionalComments:Commentsonthemanuscript"RestrictedGeometryOptimization,aDifferentWaytoEstimateStabilizationEnergiesforAromaticMoleculesofVariousTypes"byZhong-HengYu,PengBaoAuthorsproposearestrictedgeometryoptimizationtechniquesubjecttopiorbitalinteractionconstraintsasanewmeasureofaromaticity.Theapproachisinterestingandhascertainmerits.Mymainobjectionisthatthemanuscriptisdifficulttoreadandunderstand,mainlybecauseofpoorEnglish.Asubstantialrevisioninthisrespectwouldbebeneficiary.各位:新的惡戰(zhàn)開始了。投往JASA的文章沒有被拒，但被批得很兇。盡管如此，審稿人和編輯還是給了我們一個修改和再被審的機會。我們應當珍惜這個機會，不急不火。我們首先要有個修改的指導思想。大家先看看審稿意見吧。郵件原件Manuscript#07-04147:Editor'sComments:Thisismypersonaladditiontotheautomaticallygeneratedemaildisplayedabove.Yourmanuscripthasnowbeenreadbythreeknowledgeablereviewers,eachofwhomhasprovidedthoughtfulanddetailedcommentsonthepaper.Themainpointsofthereviewsareself-explanatoryandmostlyconsistentacrossthereviews.Yourpresentationneedstobereworkedsubstantially,andthereviewsgiveyoumanysuggestionsfordoingso.Clearly,theintroductionneedstobemuchmoreconciseandfocusedonthemainquestionsyouproposetoanswer,andwhythesequestionsareimportant.Therationaleforselectingthisunusualconditionmustbeclear.Yourdiscussionshouldfocusonhowthequestionshavebeenansweredandwhattheymean.Theresultssectionisheavilydependentonstatisticalanalysesthatdidnotsatisfythereviewers.Thefiguresandtablescouldbeimprovedandperhapsconsolidated.Themethodscouldbeshortened.Forexample,Ithinkreaderswouldtakeyourwordthatthesewerenonsensesentences,orperhapsyoucouldsimplycitesomeotherworkwheretheywereused.Ingeneral,itisunusualtopresentthefirstresultsaslateaspage17ofamanuscript.Beyondtheissuesofpresentation,someseriousquestionsareraisedbythereviewersaboutthedesign.Themostnotable(butnottheonlyproblem)isthattherearenoconditionswhereyoungandolderlistenerscanbecomparedatnearlythesameperformancelevelinthebaselinecondition,andthatatleastflooreffectsandpotentiallyceilingeffectsarelikelytosignificantlyinfluencetheolder/youngercomparison.Theolderlistenersaretestedatonlyonesignal-to-noiseratio,atwhichperformancewasextremelypoor.Thisasymmetricdesignwheredataforthreesignal-to-maskerratiosareavailablefortheyoungerlistenersbutonlyonefortheolderlistenersisnotideal,butperhapsthecomparisoncouldhavebeensalvagedifyouhadguessedalittlebetterinselectingthesignal-to-maskerratiofortheolderlisteners.Thatdidn'tworkoutandyoudidn'tadjusttoit.I'msorrytosaythatinmyopinionthisproblemissoseriousthatitprecludespublicationoft!heolderversusyoungerdatainJASA,asIseenowayofmakingavalidcomparisonwiththingsastheyare.Further,afterreadingthemanuscriptandthereviews,itseemstomethateventhesubjectiveimpressioncomparisonisdifficulttointerpretbecauseofthedifferentsensationlevelsatwhichtheolderandyoungergroupslistened(ifthetargetwasfixedat56dBA).TheBrungartetal.andRakerdetal.datathatyoucitewherethemaskerdelaywasmanipulatedoverthe0to64msrangewouldseemtohavebeenanicespringboardforyourstudyinolderlisteners.Woulditnothavebeencleanertohavereplicatedthoseconditionswithyoungersubjectsinyourlab,andthentestedolderlistenerstoseewhetherthepatternsofdataweredifferent?There,atleast,thetargetstimulusconditionitselfisnotvaryingandtherearearchivaldataoutthereforcomparison.Asthereviewspointout,yourconditionspresentbrandnewcomplicationsbecausetheITIchangesthespatialimpressionofthetarget,maychangetheenergeticmaskingofthetarget,anddistortsthetargettemporallyallatthesametime.Althoughthetemporaldistortionsdidnotimpairperformancesubstantiallyinquiet,theymaywellinnoise.Further,thespatialimpressionscreatedbythetargetinquietarelikelytobeverydifferentthanthosewhenthetargetisatv!erylowsensationlevelsinmasking.Pleaseinvestigatetheliteratureontheinfluenceofsensationlevelandnoiseonthestrengthoftheprecedenceeffect,particularlytheperceptionof"echoes"atthelongerdelays.YuanChuanChiangdidherdissertationonthisandpublishedtheresultsinJASAin1998,butthefirstobservationthatnoisecaninfluencethebreakingapartofalead-lagstimulusintotwoimagesdatesbackatleasttoThurlowandParks(1961).Tobesure,thesoundsthatwewanttolistentoareoftenaccompaniedbyreflections,andIamnotquestioningthegeneralvalidityofyourconditions.However,itisimportantthatyourexperimentaldesignallowsyouseparateoutthevariouscontributionstoyourresults.Ithinkthereareseveraloptionsforyoutoconsider:(1)Ifyouthinkitisveryimportanttopublishallthedatayouhaverightnow,youcouldwithdrawthemanuscriptandattempttopublishthedatainanotherjournal.(2)YoucouldarguethatthereviewersandIarewrongabouttheseriousnessoftheflooreffectwiththeolderlistenersandsubmitarevisionthatincludesthesamedatawhilemakingaconvincingcaseforthevalidityoftheolder/youngercomparison.Althoughthisoptionisopentoyou,Idon'tthinkthisisapromisingalternative.(3)Youcouldcollectmoredataonolderlistenersundermorefavorableconditionswhereperformanceisbetter.Withtheaddeddatathiscouldeitherbeanewmanuscript,or,ifsuchdatawerecollectedandthepaperrewritteninareasonableamountoftime,itcouldbeconsideredarevisionofthecurrentmanuscript.Therevisionwouldbesentbacktothereviewers.Ofcourse,Icannotpromiseinadvancethatamanuscriptevenwiththesenewdatawouldbejudgedfavorablybythereviewers.(4)Youcoulddroptheolder/youngercomparisonfromthemanuscriptandsubmitamuchshorterversionthatincludesonlytheyoungerdataandfocusesonthenoisemasker/speechmaskerdistinction,perhapsanalyzingyourdatatodrawinferencesaboutreleasefromenergeticversusinformationalmaskingfromthedata.Heretoo,itwillbeimportanttoprovideaclearrationaleforwhatyourspecificquestionisaboutreleasefrommasking,whyyourconditionswerechosen,andwhatnewinsightsyourdataoffer.Istillworryabouthowspatialeffectsandtheeffectsoftemporaldistortionsaretobedistinguished.(5)Youcouldsimplywithdrawthemanuscriptandconsideramorestraightforwarddesignforaskingthequestionsyouwanttoaskwitholderlisteners.ThankyourforsubmittingyourmanuscripttoJASA.Ihopethealternativesdescribedwillhelpguideyouonhowyoushouldproceedfromhere.Whateveryoudecidetodo,pleaseconsiderthereviewers'commentsverycarefullyastheyhavegoneoutoftheirwaytoprovideyouwithsuggestionsonimprovingthepresentation.Sincerelyyours,RichardL.FreymanReviewerComments:Reviewer#1Evaluations:Reviewer#1(GoodScientificQuality):No.SeeattachedReviewer#1(AppropriateJournal):YesReviewer#1(SatisfactoryEnglish/References):No.Reviewer#1(Tables/FiguresAdequate):No.Reviewer#1(Concise):No.Reviewer#1(AppropriateTitleandAbstract):No,becausetheterm"interval-targetinterval"inthetitlerequiredfurtherexplanation.MS#:07-04147Huangetal."Effectofchangingtheinter-targetintervaloninformationalmaskingandenergeticmaskingofspeechinyoungadultsandolderadults."Thispaperinvestigatesthebenefitsofreleasefrommaskinginyoungerandolderlisteners,asafunctionofinter-targetinterval(ITI)intwomaskerconditions(speechmaskingandnoisemasker).Thesametargetspeechwaspresentedfromtwodifferentlocationssimultaneouslyintwodifferentmaskers,onefromeachlocation(LorR).ResultsshowthatreleasefrominformationalmaskingisevidentinbothyoungerandolderlistenerswhentheITIwasreducedfrom64msto0ms.Generalcomments:Introductionneedstoberewritten:•Thegeneralimpressionisthattheintroductionsectionisunnecessarilylengthy.Thereistoomuchunnecessaryinformation,whilesomeimportanttermsandinformationareleftunexplained.•Theorganizationispoorandconceptsaredisjointed,jumpingfromplacetoplace.Forexample,theauthorsspent1.5pagesonreverberationandthedifferencebetweenolderandyoungeradults,thanspentafulltotalkaboutmasking,andthencamebacktoreverberation.•Inaddition,theauthorsdidnotclearlypresentthepurposeofthestudyandthecoreoftheissuesunderinvestigation.Theauthorsmentionedthat"thepresentstudyinvestigatedwhetherchangingtheITIoverthewholeprecedence-operationrange...caninduceareleaseoftargetspeechfromspeechmaskingornoisemasking."However,theydidnotexplainhowandwhymanipulatingITIcanaddresstheirquestions,questionsthatwerenotclearlystatedanywhereinthepaper.Nohypothesiswasprovidedinthepaperandnoexplanationwasgivenregardinghowtheexperimentalconditionsorcontrastofresultsindifferentconditionscananswerthequestionsunderinvestigation.Reportofresultsandstatisticalanalysesneedstobeaccurateandprecise:•Authorsfailedtoprovideresultsofstatisticalanalysesinmanyoccasions.•Atthebeginningoftheresultsectionforboththeyoungerandoldergroups,theauthorsshouldclearlypresentthenumberoffactorsincludedintheanalysisandwhichonewasabetween-subjectfactorandwhichoneswerewithin-subjectfactors.Maineffectsandinteraction(3-wayand2-way)shouldalsobereportedclearly.•Bonferronicorrectionwasmentionedinthepost-hocanalyses;however,nopvaluewasreported.•Theauthorsshouldnotusetheterm"marginallysignificant".Itiseither"significant"or"nonsignificant".Idon'tseep=0.084is"marginallysignificant."•Whenyousaypercentrelease,doyoumeanpercentagepointdifferencebetweenthe64msITIandotherITIvalues?Forexample,inthestatement"...thereleaseamountwas31.9%underthespeech-maskingcondition,...",doyoumean"31.9percentagepoints"?Baselineconditionisquestionable:•Theauthorsfailedtoprovideclearexplanationoftheresults.Forexample,theauthorsfinallyprovidedthedefinitionofreleasefrommasking(onp.19)as"...thereleaseofspeechfrommaskingateachITIisdefinedasthepercentdifferencebetweenthespeech-identificationattheITIandthespeechidentificationattheITIof64ms(thelongestITIinthisstudy)."•Ittookmeawhiletounderstandwhatthismeans,andfinallycameupwiththeinterpretation(ifmyinterpretationiscorrect)ofthedatafortheauthors.ItseemsthatwhenITIwasat0ms,theperceivedspatiallocationisbetweenthetwomaskers(spatialseparation).ButwhentheITIwas32and/or64ms,listenersheardtwoimages(onefromeachside)andtherewasnospatialseparationbetweenthetargetspeechandthemaskeroneitherside.Therefore,accordingtotheauthors,thereleasefrommaskingistheperformancedifferencebetweentheITIconditionswhenlistenersheardonlyoneimageinalocationdifferentfromthemaskers',andtheITIconditionswheretwoimagesfromthemaskerlocationswereheard.However,Ihaveaproblemwiththebaselinecondition(64msITIinwhichtwoimageswereperceived).Ifthelistenerscouldnotfusetheimage,didtheyhearadelay(echo)betweenthetwotargets?Ifso,thepoorperformanceinthe64msconditioncanbepartiallyduetotheconfusion/disruptioninducedbytheechoinnoiseconditionsinadditiontothelackofspatialseparationbetweenthetargetandthemasker.Subjectrecruitmentcriteriawereunclear:•Theauthorsrecruitedbothyoungandolderadultsinthestudyandclaimedthatbothgroupshad"clinicallynormalhearing."However,readingthefinedetailsoftheirhearingthresholds(<45dBHLbetween125and4kHz),itishardtoacceptthatthehearingthresholdsarewithinnormallimitsintheoldergroup.Thereisatleastamildhearinglossbelow4kHzandmild-to-moderatehearinglossabove4kHz(seeFig.1)inthesesubjects.Theauthorsshouldexplainthedifferencesintheresultsinrelationtothethresholddifferencesbetweenthetwogroups.•ThethresholddataprovidedinFig.1isaveragedata.Itisnecessarytoprovideindividualthresholddata(atleastfortheoldergroup)inatableformat.Languageproblem:•IunderstandthatEnglishisnottheauthors'nativelanguage.Itisrecommendedthattheauthorsseekassistanceinproof-readingthemanuscriptbeforesubmission.TablesandFigures:•Table1and2arenotnecessarysincetheinformationispresentedinFig.7•Theauthorsshouldprovidelegendsinthefigures.•TheauthorsshouldprovideerrorbarsinthegraphsinFig1.•ItishardtoseetheshortITIdatainFig.2•Theauthorsshouldconsiderchangingthescaleonthey-axisinFig.4toprovidebettervisualizationofthedata.•Fig.6shouldbedeleted.Resultscouldbeclearlydescribedinthetext.Specificcomments(thisisbynomeansacompletelist):p.3firstpar:ThequotefromKnudsen(1929)isnotnecessary.p.4first&secondpar.Theauthorsprovidedanexhaustivelistofreferencesinvariousplace.Irecommendtheyonlycitetheonesthataremostrelevantandrepresentative.p.4lastsentence."Alistenersubjecttoinformationalmaskingatargetspeechfeelsitdifficulttosegregateaudiblecomponentsofthetargetspeechfromthoseofmaskingspeech."Thissentenceisincomprehensible,pleaserewrite.p.5firstline,firstpar."Masking(particularlyinformationmasking)oftargetspeechcanbereducedifthelistenercanusecertaincues(perceivedspatiallocation,acousticalfeatures,lexicalinformation,etc)tofacilitatehis/herselectiveattentiontothetargetspeech."Referencesareneededforeachcuelistedinthissentence.p.5line5."Age-relateddeficits...inhibitionofgoal-irrelevantinformation...,thereforemaycausemorespeech-recognitiondifficulties"Thissentenceiscomingoutofthebluewithoutfurtherexplanation.p.8-10.Pleaseexplaintheterms"inter-loudspeakerinterval","inter-maskerinterval","inter-targetinterval"beforeusingthem.p.11line11"Moreover,iftherecognitionoftargetspeechundereitherthespeechmaskingconditionornoisemaskingconditionissignificantlyinfluencedbytheITIinyoungeradults,thepresentstudyfurtherinvestigatedwhetherthereisanage-relateddeficitinthereleasingeffectofchangingtheITI."Thissentenceisincomprehensible.p.11line2"The36younguniversitystudentsallhadnormalandbalanced"Change"balance"to"symmetrical."p.12line8"DirectEnglishtranslationsofthesentencesaresimilarbutnotidenticaltotheEnglishnonsensesentencesthatweredevelopedbyHelfer(1997)andalsousedinstudiesbyFreymanetal.(1999,2001,2004)andLietal.(2004)."Ithoughtthesentenceswerecreatedbytheauthors.So,aretheyadirecttranslationfromtheEnglishversionorcreatedbytheauthors?p.13lastpar"Forthetwo-sourcetargetpresentation,"Thiscameoutoftheblue.Theexperimentalconditionsshouldbedescribedclearlyinaseparatesection.Schematicrepresentationoftheconditionscouldbeincluded.p.15line8"Duringasession,thetarget-speechsoundswerepresentedatalevelsuchthateachloudspeaker,playingalone,wouldproduceasoundpressureof56dBA."Isthisthermslevelofspeech?Thelevelat56dBAseemsalittlelowtome.Itmaysoundverysoftfortheolderlistenersgiventhattheyhavemildtomoderatehearingloss.Canyouexplainwhyyouchosesuchalowpresentationlevel?p.15lastline"Therewere36((17+1)x2)testingconditionforyoungerparticipants,andtherewere32((15+1)x2)testingconditionsforolderparticipants."Thenumberofconditionsforeachgroupisnotapparenttome.Couldyouexplainfurtherinthemanuscript?p.16line9"...participatedinadditionalspeech-recognitionexperimentsundertheconditionwithoutmaskerpresentation."Wheredidthetargetspeechcomefrom?Front?Right?Orleft?p.17-27.Seecommentsonreportingresultsandstatisticalanalysisunder"Generalcomments"point#2.p.23line12-13"A2(maskertype)by15(ITI)within-subjectANOVAconfirmsthattheinteractionbetweenmaskertypeandITIwassignificant..."Sincetheinteractionissignificant,theauthorsshouldnotsimplyinterpretthemaineffects.p.29line9Explain"self-masking"effect.Wouldtheauthorexpecta"self-masking"effectinnoise?p.30lastparfirstline"Specifically,whentheSNRwas-4dB,changingtheITI(absolutevalue)from64to0msledtoonlyasmallimprovementintarget-speechintelligibility,andtheimprovementwassimilarbetweenthespeechmaskingconditionandthenoisemaskingcondition."Theamountofreleasefrommaskinginthespeechmaskerconditionat-4dBSNRmaybelimitedbytheceilingeffect.p.31line5"Inolderparticipants,thereductionoftheITIalsoimprovedspeechrecognitionunderboththespeechmaskingconditionandthenoisemaskingcondition..."ItishardtotellifthereisasignificantdifferenceamongtheITIconditionswiththenoisemaskerduetotheflooreffect.p.31line7frombottom."Theresultssuggestafasterdecayoftemporalstorageofthefinedetailsofspeechsoundinolderadultsthaninyoungeradults.Thusatlongitis(16msor32ms),cuesinducedbytheintegrationofleadingandlaggingtargetsignalswereweakerand/ornotbewellusedinolderparticipants."First,theauthorshouldtakeintoaccountthehearinglossintheoldergroup.Second,thisconclusionseemssomewhatcontradictorytowhattheauthorsreportedregardingtheperceivedimage(s)ofthetargetsignalundervariousITIconditions.Allexceptforoneyoungersubjectperceivedtwoseparateimagesat32msITI,butmostoftheoldersubjectsstillperceivedthetargetasoneimage.p.322ndpar.Thediscussionontheeffectofinter-sounddelayonearchannelacousticscameoutofnowhere.Reviewer#2Evaluations:Reviewer#2(GoodScientificQuality):Generallyyes-seegeneralremarksbelow.Reviewer#2(AppropriateJournal):YesReviewer#2(SatisfactoryEnglish/References):Clarityandconcisenesscouldbeimproved-seegeneralremarks.Thereferencingisoccasionallyexcessive,e.g.the17referencesprovidedtobackuptheexistenceofinformationalmaskingonpage4,lines13-17,orp28lines15-16.Somechoiceexampleswouldgenerallysufficeinsteadoftheselonglistsofcitations(seeJASAguidelines).TheEnglishissatisfactory,withlotsofminorcomments(see'detailedcomments'below)Reviewer#2(Tables/FiguresAdequate):Thefigureswouldbenefitfrombeingredrawnusingappropriategraph-plottingsoftware.Intheircurrentform,theyarequitepixelated.Thefigureswouldbenefitfromalegend,whenthereareseveralsymbolsusedonthesamegraphs.Figure2andFigure3'sx-axesshouldbesuitablynon-linear,becausethepointsplottedforITIsbetween-10and10msareillegible.Figure3isperhapslargelyrepeatsinformationthatisapparentinFigure2.Also,thetoppanelisperhapsmisleading,asthedifferencebetweenthetwoconditionscouldbeexplainedtosomedegreebyaceilingeffect.TheuseofsymmetryinFigure3shouldbeappliedtoFigure2,sincewehadnoreasontoexpectleft-righteffects.Tables1and2shouldbeomitted,sincealltheirinformationisprovidedinaFigure.Reviewer#2(Concise):ThereseemtobealargenumberofANOVAsdescribedingreatdetail.Perhapsthesecouldbereducedtomoreessentialstatistics,orevenomittedwhenthedifferencesareclearfromthefigures(see'generalremarks'below).Reviewer#2(AppropriateTitleandAbstract):Inthetitle,theterm'inter-targetinterval'couldrefertomanythings,anditisnotimmediatelyobviousfromthetitlethatthepaperhasanythingtodowiththeprecedenceeffect.Reviewer#2(Remarks):Theauthorshavepresenteduncorrelatedspeechornoisemaskersfromtwospeakers,andpresentedthetargetspeechfromthesametwospeakersnon-simultaneously,varyingthetime-interval(theinter-targetinterval,orITI)betweenthetwopresentations.Younglisteners'speech-recognition:Noveldifferenceswerementionedbetweenthedesignofyourexperimentandseeminglysimilarexperiments(Rakerdetal.2006;Brungartetal.2005).Thediscussionsectionwouldbenefitfromacomparisonoftheresultsfromtheseexperiments.ThereshouldbesomementionofthegeneraleffectofITIonspeech-recognition,andsomediscussionaboutitscauseand/orimplications.Age-relateddifferencesinspeech-recognition:Iwasnotentirelyconvincedthatthedifferencescouldnotbeadequatelyexplainedbyacombinationofelderlylisteners'increasedsusceptibilitytoenergeticmasking,elderlylisteners'reducedabilitytolisteninthedips,andfloor/ceilingeffects.Thesesimpleexplanationsshouldreceivemoreemphasis.Oncetheyhavebeenruledout,moreemphasisshouldbegiventotheapparentconnectionbetweenthesubjectiveresultsandthespeech-recognitionresults(around32msITI).Thereshouldbemorediscussionaboutthemeaningandimportanceofthisinterestingconnection,anditsimplicationsforelderlylisteners,perhapsmentioningauditorysceneanalysis.It'sunfortunatethattheelderlylistenerswereonlytestedforSNRsatwhichtheyhadsuchpoorspeechrecognition.Age-relateddifferencesinsubjectiveperception:Elderlylistenershadreducedecho-thresholdsforspeechcomparedtoyounglisteners.Thisseemstobeanovelresult.Ifthissectionistobeincluded,furtherdiscussionofrelevantliteratureshouldbeincluded,andfurtherdescriptionofthemethodusedtogetthesesubjectiveresponses.Perhapsthisaspectcouldbepu