当前位置：文档库 › 审稿意见模板大全,最新,最全

审稿意见模板大全,最新,最全

_______________________________________

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".

4. On Section 1:

· This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.

· Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration.

· A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful. 5. On Section 2:

· Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional

wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former.

· Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed.

· The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms.

6. On Sections 3 and 4:

The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs.

7. On Section 5:

· The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods.

· In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using rotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes.

· Some of the paragraphs are too long.

8. The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how the

time-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig.

The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider:

In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered at

t=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain!

What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency techniques from the literature?

Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text.以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。与大家一起分享。

以下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 me

thods 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）：

有关语言的审稿人意见：

◆ 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 pro

blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.

◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str

ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i

n English or whose native language is English.

◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte

r of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?

◆ the quality of English needs improving.

来自编辑的鼓励：

Encouragement from reviewers:

◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be

en edited because the subject is interesting.

◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm

itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat

erials.

◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.

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。

审稿意见模板大全,最新,最 全