英文审稿意见汇总.doc

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 problem8、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AB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 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. 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 been edited because the subject is interesting. There is continued interest in your manuscript titled which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials. The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication. The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your effort compares with state-of-the-art? The experiment is the major problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimental result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this result? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement? the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words. it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language. The authors did a good job in motivating the problem studied in the introduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors propose. Apparently， Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humble opinion如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .according to review comments.如果是接受，你可以用We are very pleased to inform you that your paper xxxxx has been accepted by journal name. Please prepare your paper by journal template.At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece ofwork, reporting on . Fine, good quality, but all this has been done and published, and nearly become a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, there is insufficient novelty or significance to meet publication criteria. Also, I did not see any expermental evidence how the * is related with *, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。the journals copy editors should not have to fix the many remaining errors. I sympathize that Chinese languages do not have an equivalent of English articles a, an, the and dont seem to grasp the material meaning of those words. The authors English expert decided to insert the word the in front of most mentions of tip-tilt system. This implies that there is only one system and the authors are using it exclusively. There are dozns of other misuses. Pages 2,3, 8,9,10,11, and 12 are littered with them. The paper is to difficult to read in its present form.感想：一篇好的论文，从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢。附1：中译审稿意见审稿意见1(1) 英文表达太差，尽管意思大致能表达清楚，但文法错误太多。(2) 文献综述较差，观点或论断应有文献支持。(3) 论文读起来像是XXX的广告，不知道作者与XXX是否没有关联。(4) 该模式的创新性并非如作者所述，目前有许多XX采取此模式（如美国地球物理学会），作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的创新点。(5) 该模式也不是作者所说的那样成功(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)审稿意见2(1) 缺少直接相关的文献引用(如)。(2) 写作质量达不到美国学术期刊的标准。审稿意见3(1) 作者应着重指出指出本人的贡献。(2) 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析。(3) 需要采用表格和图件形式展示(数据)材料。附2：英文审稿意见(略有删节)Reviewer: 1There are many things wrong with this paper.The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct.The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references.The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX.The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model.The model is also not as successful as the author claims. Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.Reviewer: 2The are two major problems with this paper:(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the two-sided market literature including that directly related to (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal.Reviewer: 31. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript.2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support authors discoveries.3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.Ms. Ref. No.: *Title: * Materials Science and Engineering Dear Dr. *,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits:1)the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2)some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ; Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal.英文论文写作、投稿详解(整理各大学术论坛相关帖子，转帖) 目前科技论文作者向国际英文科技期刊投稿的方式有三种。一是传统的邮寄形式，即通过国际快件将论文的原稿邮寄给刊物的主编或编辑部。这种形式曾经是投稿的近乎唯一的方式，持续了漫长的岁月，可现在采用这种方式接受来稿的刊物越来越少了。二是用电子邮件的方式投稿，即作者将原稿的电子文件发至主编或编辑部的电子信箱。这种投稿方式显然比邮寄快得多，但与邮寄一样，稿件也有丢失的时候。目前采用这种纳稿方式的期刊还很多，但有很大一部分期刊己经在此基础上，又进了一步，发展到第三种也是目前最新的一种投稿方式，即网上投稿 (ON-LINE SUBMISSION)。这种方式速度快，而且稿件不会丢失。一旦作者在网上登记注册投稿，每个主要步骤都有记录，很受科技期刊作者的欢迎。本文将就网上投稿过程及作者应该注意的地方予以详细的介绍，供对此感兴趣的中国作者参考。 网上投稿的关键是要做好充分的准备工作。首先，作者对所要投稿的国际英文刊物的投稿需知(GUIDE FOR AUTHORS)要了解清楚，并且按照要求准备好原稿的所有文件。一般科技论文分为回顾性文章(REVIEW ARTICLE)，普通论文(REGULAR/RESEARCH ARTICLE)，快讯(SHORT COMMUNICATIONS)等。不同的文章类型，对原稿的格式要求也有所变化。单就普通论文而言，文章从头到尾的基本格式是：论文的开篇部分，包括文章标题(TITLE)，作者姓名(AUTHORS NAME)(注明通讯作者/CORRESPONDING AUTHOR)，作者单位地址(AFFILIATION)，论文摘要(ABSTRACT)，关键词(KEYWORDS)等；论文的正文部分，包括介绍/引言(INTRODUCTION)，实验方法(METHOD)，实验材料(MATERIAL)，结果与分析(RESULTS AND ANALYSIS)，讨论（DISCUSSION）, 结论（CONCLUSION）等；需说明的是不同的学科，正文的内容和形式会有所增减，图表、公式的数量也会有所不同。正文后的结尾部分有的文章附加致谢辞(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)，有的则没有，但参考文献(REFERENCE)则是必须的。有的文章还带有附录(APPENDIX)，如全部的实验原始数据、计算机软件程序等。现在有的刊物可以在网上发表的文章中附带电子视听文件(E-COMPONENTS)。如短录像片(VIDEO CLIP)，动画片(SHORT CARTOON)等。作者要根据自身的情况，选择文章应该包含的内容，一旦确定，所有的内容都要在网上投稿前准备好。此外，不但原稿的内容和格式要符合刊物的要术，而且在字数、页数、格式、文件储存形式等方面，均要与投稿刊物的要求一致。否则，文章在初选阶段会很快落选。其次，是作者对投稿刊物网上投稿系统的熟悉和学习。如果可能，最好请有这方面经验的作者上一课，可以节省时间和事半功倍。如果找不到合适的老师，作者自己要耐心地自学。从刊物的网页入手，仔细阅读网上的投稿需知、跟踪链接或屏幕启示，把每个环节搞明白弄清楚。 在网上投稿，头一步是在网页上注册，也叫作者登记。实际上与网上购物注册没太大区别，关键是要把自己的姓名、单位、联系地址，包括电话、传真和电子邮箱等登记准确无误。二是按部就班地输入文章的各个主要部分。如题目、作者、摘要、关键词、正文、图表等。在输入每个部分的时候，一是要通读该部分的有关要求，再次确认自已输入的文件是否符合要求。这听起来并不难，但实际上作者在这方面的疏忽却很多。比如按要求，原稿不能超过20页，可有的原稿长达40多页，甚至更长。有的文章作者完全忽略了刊物对关键词的要求，随心所欲。二是确认每个部分输入的完整性。有些作者在输入文件时过于匆忙，十个图只输入一半，这样的稿件即使到了编辑部也不能送审，只能返回作者补漏。如果审校员一时疏忽或主编没有查觉，将有缺欠的文章发出送审，则审稿人因为缺图，不能正常审阅文章。这样造成的麻烦所耽误的时间会更多。三是输入文件完毕后，也就是所有的部分成功地输入后，不要忘了点击投稿发送键。否则，稿件只会存储在作者自已的文件夹中，而不是发到编辑部。目前，许多科技期刊网上投稿，需把文件由一种存储形式转换到另一种存储形式，比如DOC文件变成PDF文件。在这个转换过程中，计算机屏幕会呈停滞状态，看上去好像死机了。其实不然，只需耐心等待罢了。原稿在网上成功投出后，作者马上就能收到编辑部的回执。如果有问题，屏幕上则会出现问题预警或解决问题的提示。如果作者不能自行解决故障或问题反复出现，作者可与出版社的网上投稿支持部门联系，求得帮助。此外值得一提的是，部分著名出版社的网页上除附有投稿需知外，还专门设计了针对网上投稿的指导示范文件。作者初学乍练时可以抽时间学习一下。总之，网上投稿并不难，关键是准备充分，而且在实际上机操作时按部就班，不能单纯求快，否则欲速而不达。 编辑部收到稿件后，有的是直接送审，有的是先进行一步初选(主要是检查论文的英文是否过关)，然后再送审。不论是哪种情况，论文在送审前均需通过最基本的技术检查。目的是看原稿是否包含了应该有的基本内容。有些刊物的编辑部就设在出版社内，这类期刊的检查会更全面，包括文件形式、内容、作者联系方式、文章是否属于重复性投稿等等。一旦发现问题(比如原稿过长，关键词不符合要求等)，原稿会马上返回作者，进行必要的补充和修改。原稿一旦退回作者，文件便会重新回到作者自己在网上的投稿文件夹里，等候修改。与此同时，作者的电子信箱内同样会收到一封编辑部的来信，明确告之稿件应该进行修改或补充的地方。作者只需上网从自己的文件夹中调出文件修改即可。一旦文件修改完毕，作者又要根据出版社信函中的提示，上网按步骤再将原稿发回刊物的编辑部。这个操作过程和最开始的投稿大同小异，往往也要将DOC文件转换成PDF文件。原稿返回编辑部送审后，有的会很干脆地被拒绝，有的会顺利地圆满接受，但大部分原稿需按审稿人的意见进行规模不同的修改。经过作者修改过的稿件又需要在网上重新发回编辑部。但有的作者在接到主编或编辑部转来的审稿人意见后，对其评价有很大的异议或不愿改动自己的论文，便可以主动要求退稿。手续很简单，只需向编辑部发个电子邮件即可或自己上网撤稿。如果作者愿意根据审稿人的意见改动论文，则需改得全面彻底，并且对审稿人提出的疑问要一一做答。这份单独的问答要整理成一份单独的文件，在网上再次发稿时使用。如果缺少这份问答文件，在许多期刊网上投发修改稿时会出现障碍，应引起作者的注意。修改后的论文要从作者网上的论文文件夹里发给编辑部，最初的原稿可以存储在文件夹中，可作者一定要确定第二次投出的稿件是修改后的文件，而不是初稿。这种张冠李戴的事在网上投稿过程中时有发生。文件名称明明显示是修改稿，可审稿人打开文件后才发现是初稿又原封不动地回来了，让人有点哭笑不得。修改过的稿件回到编辑部后，原稿的编码序号不变，只是多了一或二个尾数，表明是修改稿。有的稿件改动一次即可被刊物采纳，但也有的要反复修改多次才能被通过。对被否定的文章，如果作者对否定的原因有异议，可以向编辑部或主编提出自己的意见，据理力争。如果主编同意作者的意见，文章可以重新进入新的一轮审稿程序。这种情况不多，但在网上这样的文章也同样记录在案。在网上投出的稿件不论改动多少回，其序号都不会改变，只有尾数的变动，以表明是修改后的第几稿。比如R1是第一次修改稿，R2是第二份修改稿，依此类推。但每份修改过的文件在网上都有记录，而且每份审稿人的意见也都记录在案。不单如此，整个审稿过程中经过刊物网页发给作者的电子邮件也都有记录。总之，每一个步骤都有据可查，只要整个系统不出问题，就不会有稿件丢失的情况发生。 由此可见，网上投稿的好处的确很多，难怪深受广大作者的欢迎。现在有许多科技期刊已经告别了邮寄和电子邮件的时代，开始只受理网上投稿。今后，这样的期刊可能会越来越多。所以，能自如地驾驭好网上投稿这个新的投稿手段，对学者们而言无疑是件好事。 附录1.SCI投稿信件的一些套话一、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - .Yours sincerely2. Dear Dr. A:Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journals readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.二、询问有无收到稿件Dear Editors,We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.三、询问论文审查回音Dear Editors，It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.四、关于论文的总体审查意见1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision 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 are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?五、给编辑的回信1. In reply to the referees main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referees comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3. Thank you for your letter of and for the referees comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referees suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed.5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red. 6. We found the referees comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript 7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.11. I feel that the reviewers comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons tha