(完整版)一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

1、完美格式整理版一些英文审稿意见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 no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and se

2、ntence 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 expla natio n of why the authors did these various experime nts should be provided.3、

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 con clusi ons are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulatio n.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis n e

4、eds to be prese nted 。6对某个概念或工具使用的ratio nale/ 定义概念：What was the rati on ale 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 no vel but the applicati on propos

5、ed is not so no vel.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

6、 addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close butnot completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with InstructionsforAuthors which shows examples.Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properlyprepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the f

7、ormatting nstructionsto authors that are given under the Instructionsand Formsbutt on in he upper right-ha nd corner of the scree n.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attenti

8、on toEnglish 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 propertran slatio n/reviewi ng service before submissi on; only the n can a proper review be performed. Most senten ces con ta in g

9、rammatical an d/or spelli ng mistakes or are not complete senten ces.As prese nted, the writi ng is not acceptable for the journ al. There are problems with sentence structure, verb ten se, and clause con structi on.The En glish of your manu script must be improved before resubmissi on. We stro ngly

10、 suggest that you obtai n assista nee from a colleague who is well-versed in En glish or whose n ative Ian guage is En glish.Please have some one compete nt in the En glish Ian guage and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of En glish n eeds impro ving.作为审稿

11、人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊），但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意，就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名信息等就都删除了，以免造成不必要的麻烦！希望朋友们多评价，其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家！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

12、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 4Reviewer Recomme ndatio n Term: Reject Overall Reviewer Manu script Rat ing: 25Comme nts to Editor: Reviewers are required to en ter their n ame, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be

13、 seen by the author.Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXAffiliati on: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript entitledSynthesis XXX。 it has been synthesizedwith a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. Thismanuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property

14、and therefore only contributionmaybe in novel preparation method, stillthis point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writi ng is rather poor; there are several stateme nts not supported with data (for somesee Remarks 2) and even someflaws (see Remark 3). For these reas ons I

15、 suggest to reject paper in the prese nt form.1. The paper describes a new method for preparati on of XXXX, but:-the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparati onof XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-discussio n),(通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的)-it has to be

16、described why this method is better or differentfrom othermethods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussi on),-it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX)y other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - dis

17、cussi on),-it has to be outli ned what is the ben efit 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 discuss ing XRD data XXXauthors-state that XXXXX-state that XXXX-This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, de

18、nsity, 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. Whendiscussing luminescenee measurements authors write XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter whattype of material one inv estigates!（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 5Reviewer Recomme ndatio n

19、Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Ma nuscript Rati ng: N/AComme nts to Editor:Title （Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.Name:（国人）Affiliati on: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDear editor:Thank you for invitingmeto evaluate the article titled XXXX“. In thispaper, the authors in vestigated the in flue ncesof sin teri ngc

20、on diti on onthe crystal structure and XXXXXX ， However, it is difficult for us to un dersta nd the manu script because of poor En glish being used.The text is not well arran ged and the logic is not clear. Except En glish writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental resul

21、ts dont 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 manu script:（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 bee n inv estigated since1997 as mentioned in the

22、authors manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The syn thesis method and lumin esce nee properties reported in this manu script did nt supply eno ugh evide nee to support the prime no velty stateme nt.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年

23、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 men ti oned that: XXXX Based on our kno wledge, sin teri ng describes the process whe n the powders become ceramics. So,I think th

24、e word syn thesis should be better in stead of sin teri nghere.Sec ond, the XRD patter ns did nt show obvious differe nee betwee n 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 did nt supply the mor

25、phologies of particles at differe nt syn thesiz ing temperatures. What are the experime ntal results or the refere nces which support the authors con clusi on that the XXXX properties would be in flue need 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

26、However, to my kno wledge, after the milli ng, 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 patter ns was meanin gless, becauseauthor add several patter ns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra

27、are n ot measured by ordinary methods.（都是老问题，不说了）好东西原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复 作者：海天奥博一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的 回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的 回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复 轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平 时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出 自己的意见。但

28、是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺 陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家 掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人 意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复 中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当 然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是 major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来 打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审

29、稿人自 己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，maki ng a refere nee is n ot charity!看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样， 这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision ，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充， 所谓argue就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是 容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做

30、到的修改，一定要 一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的， 还有诸如跟算法A，B, C, D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务， 我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出 的方法也很好，但本文的重点是 blablabla ，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示 对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是 minor,意见只有寥寥数行， 那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时

31、候，问题在于要 不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样 首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷 衍他。如果结果是 major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下 面谈谈答复信的写法。写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此， 所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即Listof Actions, Resp on ses to Editor, Resp on ses to Reviewers。第

32、一部分List ofActio ns的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对 修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部 分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”-“ argue”（如 果有的话）-“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出， 比如“意见”用italic ，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面举例说明各部分的写法和格式。编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。审稿人1：A和B做过。意见1:置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被 意见2:算法表述不明确。意见3 :对图3的图例应做出解释

33、。审稿人2：意见1 :图2太小。意见2 :第3页有个错别字很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿人意见1之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对1.1采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：List of ActionsLOA1: The revised manu script is double spaced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have bee n added in page 3.LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 t

34、o further explain the algorithmLOA4: Expla nati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3 have bee n added in page 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has bee n enl arged.LOA6: All typos have bee n removed.=分页=Resp on ses to Editor请在修改稿中用双倍行距Wehave double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.=分页=Resp on se

35、s to ReviewersTo Reviewer 1:学习好帮手意见1:置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。Thank you for pointing this out. A and B s research groups ha ve doneblablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We hav

36、e added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manu script, see LOA2.“blablablabla（ 此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区 别之处）”意见2:算法表述不明确。Wehave added the followingdiscussion to further explain algorithm *, seeLOA3.“ blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”意见3:对图3的图例应做出解释。Wehave added the follow ing expl

37、a nati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3, see LOA3.“ blablablabla （图3图例的解释）”=分页=To Reviewer 2:意见1:图2太小。We have enl arged Figure 2, see LOA 4.意见2:第3页有个错别字。We have removed all typos, see LOA5.=分页=总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权 当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。http:/emuch. net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1493261SCI投稿信件的

38、一些套话(整理)一、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:I am sending a manuscript entitled“” by which I should like to submit for possibpublicati on in the jour nal of -.Yours sin cerely2. Dear Dr. A:Enclosed is a manuscript entitled“” by sb, which we are submitting for publication injour nal of - . We have chose n thi

39、s jour nal because it deals with - . We believe that sth w be of interest to the journal s readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Please find enclosed for your review an original research article,“” by sb. All authave read and approve this vers ion of the article, and due care has bee n take n to en sure integrityof

40、 the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No con，of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this le the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.We appreciate your con siderati on of our manu script, an

41、d we look forward to receivi ng comm from the reviewers.二、询问有无收到稿件Dear Editors,We dispatched our manu script to your jour nal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, rec ack no wledgeme nt of their safe arrival. We fear that may have bee n lost and should be grat if you would let us know whether or n

42、ot you have received them. If not, wewill send our manus aga in. Thank you in adva nee 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 publicatio your jour nal. I have not yet received a reply and am won deri ng whether you have rea

43、che decision. I should appreciated your lettingmeknow what you have decided as soon as possi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 m revisi on are list below.2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit public

44、ation.the ben efit of the reader, however, a nu mber of points n eed clarify ing and certa in statemrequire further justification. There are given below.3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advanceknowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publicati

45、on in PNAS. We suggest that authors try submitt ing their findings to specialist jour nal such as4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.5. This manu script is not suitable for publicati on in the jour nal of because the maobservation it describe was rep

46、orted 3 years ago in a reputable journal of -.6. Please ask some one familiar with En glish lan guage to help you rewrite this paper. As will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is satisfactory.7. Wefeel that this pote ntiallyin teresti ngstudy has bee n

47、marred by an in ability to commuthe finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the adof some one with a good kno wledge of En glish, preferable n ative speaker.8. The word ing and style of some sect ion, particularly those concerning HPLC, n eed carediting. Attenti

48、on should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Su which have bee n un derl in ed.9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in T2, none has bee n repeated. This is clearly un satisfactory, particularly whe n there is so variation be

49、tween assays.10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were anti used?五、给编辑的回信1. In reply to the referee s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say thatOne minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra compositi on of the react ion mi: in Figure 1.

50、This has now bee n corrected. Further minor cha nges had bee n made on page 3, parac 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referee s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper hasrejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxi

51、city data. I admit that I did not include a toxi table in my articlealthough perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rathan an error or omissi on.3. Thank you for your letter of- and for the referee s comments concerning our manuscentitled “” . Wehave studied their comments care

52、fullyand have madecorrection which wemeet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments don the referee s suggesti on. You will see that our orig inal findings are con firmed.5. We are sending the revised manu script accord ing to the comme

53、nts of the reviewers. Rev porti on are un derl ined in red.6. We found the referee s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript7. We are pleased to note the favorable comme nts of reviewers in their ope ning sentenc8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manu scr

54、ipt is acceptfor publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which arsummarized in Table 5. From this we con elude that intrin sic factor is not acco unt.10. Wedeleted the releva nt passage since they are not esse ntial to the contents of the p,11. I feel that the reviewer s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from amisi nterpr