当前位置：文档库 › 审稿注意事项及意见模板

审稿注意事项及意见模板

如何正确审稿

1、不要因为写作水平差就随便拒稿。

2、不要故意写作者没有做什么实验或模拟而拒稿。很多人做研究时，都喜欢把问题简化，尽量减少干扰因素。只要作者针对某个因素进行了透彻的研究，千万不能因为没有考虑某些方面而拒稿。比如做材料研究时，由于很多材料非球形，但做数值模拟时为了简化，将材料作为球形来研究，只要利用球形得到的结果真实，有新意，就接受。在审稿意见里建议作者继续做非球形材料。

3、炒冷饭的一定要拒稿。为了文章数量，将自己很多发表了的论文加以整理，没有任何新的工作的稿子一定要坚持拒稿。

4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。

5、不能因为反对自己的观点而拒稿。

模板：审稿意见

The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:

1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.

2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.

3. The title of the paper 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".

一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：

（1）简要描述论文研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不

足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

如何审稿

评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，学习他人如何审稿。比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见。

做好审稿工作要对同行要有绝对的责任感，通过同行评阅认定高水准文献，对科学进步至关重要。审稿的质量会影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为。审稿人面临的挑战是，要发现那些作者本人没有发现的东西。这需要对文献有全面掌握，既熟悉进展，又熟悉经典。当然，审稿人也会碰到自己不熟悉的知识点，这时可以向他人请教、学习，或者谢绝审稿，请编辑另找他人。做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到同行的认可。令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够增加作者的知识，提高作者从事和报道科学研究的能力。

审稿时应该对工作充满耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，又不能“放水”。要提出明确的建议，并有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；。在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，需要反复斟酌。不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够。

1．接受审稿邀请

对于自己感兴趣的题目，研究工作在自己的专业技能之内，而且又能拿出时间认真审阅时，可考虑接受邀请。对于自己不熟悉的专业领域，应果断拒绝。只要你说明拒绝的理由，编辑不会认为你对审稿不感兴趣。

2．阅读和评价

先花点时间看看摘要，初步了解在实验设计、方法、结果和结论中，你需要看的重点是什么，特别要看出作者认为其工作的重点是什么。提出一个宽泛的问题，带着问题去看全文：例如，这是一篇关于方法学的论文、是病例总结还是病例报道?与以往的论文相比，本文的新意是什么?

然后再仔细阅读全文，要看懂；遇到看不懂的地方，要分析原因，是科学问题令人困惑，还是作者没有讲清楚。不合逻辑或有悖于常识的科学问题包括：互相矛盾、结论无根据、因果关系（归因）不当、不恰当推论、循环推理、纠缠于琐碎问题等。至于写作问题，有的是不会写或写不好，对此应明确提出让作者修改，例如冗余、跑题、术语不解释、用词不准确、专业术语不规范、缩略语不规范。行文要求条理清楚，让读者跟着自己的思路走。更重要的是要看实验设计是否交待清楚，研究的逻辑性结构包括目的、假说、假说的可验性预测、结论等是否完善。重要问题不应不予以交代，例如方法学上的局限性，本研究结果与其他研究结果的不一致性或一致性等，都需在讨论部分予以说明。论文中还会经常碰到一些“低级“的过失误差，例如百分比加起来不是100，数字前后不一致等，这些往往很容易逃过审稿人的眼睛！

读完第一遍后，不要急于下结论。继续阅读第二遍，再对稿件做出评价。首先评价稿件的科学性，看其科学性是否正确，特别是推论（论证）的质量、科理和知识的运用。是应用性研究还是基础性研究，要考虑对本刊读者是否适宜。

其次要评价稿件的写作情况，表达是否清晰、准确、完整；审稿人看起来都费劲，何况其他读者?当然不同作者的写作风格可有不同，也不必千篇一律。

看完后要尝试提出建议了。给编辑的建议要反映出：（1）对稿件最终处理意见的初步看法，即接受还是退稿；（2）在做出上述决定之前，你认为需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇论文探讨的问题是令人关注的课题，想法也令人很感兴趣，但其科学性不够强，那么你就要提出如何改进其科学性的建议。你可以提出正反两方面的看法，供编辑决定是否录用时参考。决定是否接受还要考虑到期刊的发表率。在很多情况下，审稿人的建议是“待定”，等待作者对提出的问题给予答复。对于可能存在严重缺点的稿件，要特别注意给作者答复的机会；有时他们会很快将问题解决，有时问题并不一定能解决。

3．撰写审稿意见

给编者的话（致编辑）包括3个部分，文字要精炼，一般不超过三百字：（1）概要，用三四句话说明研究的主题、基本方法、主要发现，解读（释义）作者的主要结论。这对于梳理审稿人的思路很重要，同时也让编辑能够更好地了解以下2部分提出的意见。（2）主要评价和问题。（3）建议，例如：本文提出了什么新

的观点、有何新的发现、值得进一步修改，等等。

给作者的意见（致作者）要更加具体，字数更多一些。基本原则是，审稿人发现的问题，必须对作者说清楚；不要给予表扬，因为稿件能被接受，作者就够高兴的了；避免指责，每一篇投稿都是同行长期工作的成果，这完全没有必要。

给作者的意见同样包括3个部分。（1）概要同“致编辑”，作者可以获悉审稿人从其论文中看到了什么，有些可能是作者自己都想不到的，这有助于作者突出重点，如何准备回复或修改。（2）主要评价和问题：逐条书写，要解释清楚，要有依据；不要只给予“定性”的陈述，例如不要笼统地说“对照组不恰当，”要具体指出问题和理由。对于写作上的问题，审稿人有时也许会感到“生气”：文章没写好就投稿，太不礼貌了（甚至会说，太不严谨了）。遇到写作问题，审稿人可具体罗列主要的几条，并提出修改建议。对于实在太差的，要明确告诉作者请其上级（导师）或有经验的同事帮着修改。（3）次要问题，例如冗余、符号使用不当、错别字等，审稿人一般会笼统地提及需要修改，但如果能按页码和分行逐一列出，作者肯定会对你的严谨态度和责任感表示敬佩。

审稿意见的一些套话

1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revisions 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 and 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 specialist 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 familiar 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 English 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 Discussion 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 is poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

以下是关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。

1、目标和结果不清晰。

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、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

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、对于研究设计的rational:

Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：

The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：

A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：

What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

7、对研究问题的定义：

Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:

The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.

9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，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、严谨度问题：

MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.

11、格式（重视程度）：

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、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：

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.

国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志，被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，详细看了下打的分数，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），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！（括号斜体内容为我注解）

Reviewer 4

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25

Comments 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: XXX

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Manuscript 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),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）

- 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).

（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）

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，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）

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.英语写作要提高（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）

Reviewer 5

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A

Comments to Editor:

Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.

Name:（国人）

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx

Dear editor:

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this pap er, 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 don't 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:（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）

1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works 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.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，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 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细了，虫子们可别犯啊）

3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。However, the author didn't supply 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?

（作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）

4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?（虫子们自己注意）

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 are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了）

审稿意见回复模板,中文

审稿意见回复模板,中文篇一：审稿意见模板如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量

评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 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、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 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、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集

SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

论文投稿——回复审稿人写作指南及模板

回复审稿人——答复信写作指南及模板回复审稿意见是出版过程中的一个重要环节。答复信应包括：a)写给期刊编辑的引言段，b)对审稿意见的逐条回复。应描述对稿件做出的主要改动，例如，对任何图表的删除。向期刊编辑说明如何发现这些改动的地方。例如，应描述“新增部分以黄色背景突出显示”。可以不同意审稿人的意见，但需阐明理由并提供引用作为例证。如果无法在规定的时间内修回稿件，应提前与期刊编辑沟通好。在修改稿件时：回复所有编辑和/或审稿人审稿人的意见在回复中描述您对稿件所做的改动按要求添加相应的实验或分析，如果没有添加则解释清楚理由对于不一致的看法，应提供科学的依据，礼貌地给出不同意见审稿意见以及回复内容应加以清楚地区分使用不同颜色的字体，粗体字或斜体大幅修改的内容应清晰地显示新增内容应突出显示，删除内容使用删除线(删除内容使用删除线) 在规定的时间内返回修改好的稿件及对审稿意见的回复 [Insert Journal Editor’s name here] Editor-in-Chief [Insert Journal name here] [Insert date here] Dear Dr [Insert editor’s surname here], Re: Manuscript reference No. [Insert tracking number or code here]

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript “[Insert the title of your manuscript here]”, which we would like to resubmit for publication as a [Insert article type here]in [Insert Journal name here]. Your comments and those of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments of the reviewers as well as your own comments. Revisions in the text are shown using yellow highlight for additions, and strikethrough font [example]for deletions. In accordance with reviewer [insert Reviewer number here]’s suggest ion, we [insert changes you made according to suggestions; e.g., We removed table 1 and replaced Figure 3]. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in [Insert Journal name here]. We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely, [Insert your name, degrees and title if appropriate] Address: [Insert] Ph: [Insert] Fax: [Insert] E-mail: [Insert] Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1 1.[Insert Comment here: copy and paste directly] Response: [Insert response here in italics] 2.[Insert Comment here: copy and paste directly] Response: [Insert response here in italics] Responses to the comments of Reviewer #2 1.[Insert Comment here: copy and paste directly] Response: [Insert response here in italics] 2.[Insert Comment here: copy and paste directly] Response: [Insert response here in italics]

审稿意见模板-拒稿

The authors developed a biodegradable PLA/Gelatin/PLA multi-layered film for food packaging and investigated the physical properties of the film in comparison with gelatin and PLA mono-layered films. This multi-layered film, however, is very similar to films prepared in Ref.2 (J. F. Martucci, R. A. Ruseckaite, J. Applied Polym. Sci. 118, 3102–3110 (2010) ). Material and structure of the film were no innovation, and the solution casting method, which was used in this study, showed no significant advantage in film properties compared to previous method in former research. In a whole, the paper cannot be accepted due to lack of novelty Other comments: 1. The full name of PLA should be given in Abstract when mentioned for the first time. 2. The polymerization degree of PLA might have strong influence on the properties of the film, and should be included in the Materials part. 3. In Section 3.2, the authors stated that “All film types were developed with the same total solid content in this study”, which should be mentioned in the Method part. 4. Table 3, the authors mentioned that all the data was collected from five samples. Error bar of each data should be given in the table. 5. In Section 3.1, authors stated that “Control gelatin film exhibited more uniform and fibrillar structure. However, PLA film had more compact

审稿意见该怎么写

一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。根据以上三点，你可以适当发挥。提起审稿，许多人认为所谓的审稿就是受期刊编辑的委托，对一篇论文作出正确的评价。这一点大凡大家都知道，为什么呢？许多博友可能都不同程度地参与过审稿工作而已。那么，期刊编辑如何选择审稿专家，专家如何审阅稿件，即如何正确评价一篇论文，专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。编辑如何选择审稿专家对于每一份专业的科技期刊（或称学术期刊），其编辑部都会设立一个庞大的编辑委员会，编委会主任一般都由在本行业（或专业）有一定知名度的专家、学者担任，编委会成员由一大批本行业（或专业）的知各专家、教授或学者担任，在编委中，一般都要考虑到各大专院校相关专业、相关科研院所及地域间的名额平衡问题，期刊主办单位和北京地区的名额相应会多一些，而一些省市的名额可能只有一个，有些经济和文化相对落后的省区可能还没有编委。这种情况造成了一些编委天生地就只能是挂名或名誉的。有时一些编委几年都审不了一篇稿件，这种情况是十分正常的。为什么呢？因为在编委会下，编辑部还会有一个审稿专家的名单，这个审稿专家名单是不公开的，这个审稿名单里的专家一般都是处于年富力强、正在一线从事科研工作的专家学者。同时，有时编辑部还要根据具体情况聘请部分两院院士作为学术顾问，对一些对行业有重大影响的稿件进行必要的审查。从而形成了编委不审稿、审稿专家不是编委的状况。编辑选择审稿专家的原则，首先，是专家的经历和学历，特别是专家的经历是最重要的。每年编辑部都要发表格给专家，让专家填写工作经历，即专家系统数据库的刷新，通过“刷新”编辑会得到专家最新的研究动向和科学前沿，在编辑请专家审阅某一篇论文时，编辑就会“心中有数” 从而不会出现选择审稿专家时的“偏差”。当然高学历的专家也是编辑首选的目标。其次，是专家对审稿工作的认真负责态度。有些专家喜欢做一些文字工作，而有些专家学者并不善于从事审稿工作。有些专家对待审稿工作競競业业，从标题到标点，从字词到结构，从正文到参考文献等通篇都进行了修正，并做出全面而客观的评价意见，最后得出了采用与否的建议，这样的审稿专家从编辑的角度来说，是十分喜欢的。而一些专家的审稿意见则是“不用”或“建议录用”几个字了事，对于不用的稿件，无论是编辑还是审稿专家，都应该明明白白地告诉作者不用的理由，而简单的“不用”是无论如何也不能让作者理解的！如果审稿专家的长期这么简单的处理稿件，必将导致编辑对其的“淡化”。同时对于由于繁忙而经常拖着不及时审阅的论文，编辑也会在以后的审稿安排中，少给这些“比较忙”的专家们审稿，有时可能就会在无声无息中取消了这些专家的审稿资格。我接触过几位审稿专家，对论文的审稿意见竟多达三页纸（有

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

英文期刊审稿意见模板

1、目标和结果不清晰。 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、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 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、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，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、严谨度问题： MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： 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、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：

(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板

List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× ...... 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have …… 最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

如何回复审稿人意见

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见 Response to Editor and Reviewer 这是我的英文修改稿回复信 Dear Editor, RE: Manuscript ID We would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments. Below is our response to their comments. Thanks for all the help. Best wishes, Dr. XXX Corresponding Author 下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下： Revision —authors’ response Reviewer #1: Major comments

期刊论文审稿意见怎么写

期刊论文审稿意见怎么写期刊论文审稿意见，从功能角度讲，它是一个能让学者检讨文章、加深研究、开拓思路的好机会，所以审稿意见的好坏也关乎论文质量的高低，那么期刊论文审稿意见又该怎么写呢？下面我们一起来探讨一下。首先、期刊论文审稿方向。 1.政治性审查：国家领土和主权问题；民族尊严问题；党的方政治性审查针、政策问题；涉外问题；宗教问题；历史问题；保密问题；其他政治问题。 2.原创性、创新性、先进性：检索网络文献数据库、二次文摘或文题文献、主要专业期刊等，查阅同类主题已有哪些研究、是否重复、有无抄袭等。 3.科学性审查：即审查论文是否符合科学原理。主要包括真实性、客观性、准确性、严密性、科学性审查、等5个方面。其次、期刊论文审稿主要内容形式。（1）对稿件最终处理意见的初步看法，即接受还是退稿；（2）在做出上述决定之前，你认为需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇论文探讨的问题是令人关注的课题，想法也令人很感兴趣，但其科学性不够强，那么你就要提出如何改进其科学性的建议。你可以提出正反两方面的看法，供编辑决定是否录用时参考。决定是否接受还要考虑到期刊的发表率。在很多情况下，审稿人的建议是“待定”,等待作者对提出的问题给予答复。对于可能存在严重缺点的稿件，要特别注意给作者答复的机会；有时他们会很快将问题解决，有时问题并不一定能解决。撰写审稿意见审稿意见要用文字描述，不能只打勾。给编者的话（致编辑）包括3个部分，文字要精炼，一般不超过二三百字：（1）概要，用三四句话说明研究的主题、基本方法、主要发现，解读（释义）作者的主要结论。这对于梳理审稿人的思路很重要，同时也让编辑能够更好地了解以下2部分提出的意见。（2）主要评价和问题。（3）建议，例如：本文提出了什么新的观点、有何新的发现、值得进一步修改，等等。

中文审稿意见怎么写

中文审稿意见怎么写篇一：审稿意见例文（化学）】整篇文中思路清晰，所列数据能够很好的支持相应问题。建议修改后同意接收。篇二：审稿意见模板】如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢? 为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（ 3 ）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（ajrccm ）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? black 等曾对英国杂志（bmj ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对bmj 的420 份稿件的审稿人进行了调查， 2 位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过 3 小时则无更大意义。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40 岁左右的审稿人。那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提

(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板

如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验： 1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。自我感觉总结（不一定对）： 1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势； 2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息； 3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发； 4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。欢迎大家批评指正。我常用的回复格式: Dear reviewer: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below. 1）

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板 SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as w ell as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully a nd have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red i n the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ××××××。。。。。。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing …….. It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’ s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’ s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. Thes e changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will m eet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions 以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。与大家分享。从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。这些意见分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见，我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高文章的质量。