一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

1、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 scri pt n eeds careful edit ing by some one with exp ertise in tech ni cal En glish edit ing paying p articular atte nti on to En glish grammar, sp elli ng, an

2、d 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 explan atio n of why the authors did these various exp erime nts should be pro vi

3、ded.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explan ati ons of the ratio nale for the study desig n.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The con clusi ons are overstated. For exa mp le, the study did not showif the side effects from initialcopper burst can be avoid with the polymerformulatio n.5、对hypo thesis的清晰界定：A hyp

4、o thesis n eeds to be p rese 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 p roblem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one secti on to defi ne the p roblem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:The topic is no vel but the app

5、licati on prop osed is not so no vel.9、对 claim,如 A> B 的证明，verification: There is no exp erime ntal comp aris on of the algorithm with p reviously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on prev ious work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive P NQS, how

6、 to p rove that.11、格式（重视程度）：In additi on, the list of refere nces is not in our style. It is close butnot completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "InstructionsforAuthors" which shows exa mp les.Before submitt ing a revisio n be sure that your material is prop erlyprep ared and

7、formatted. If you are un sure, pl ease con sult the formatt ing n struct ionsto authors that are give n un der the "I nstruct ionsand Forms"butt on in he upper right-ha nd corner of the scree n.12、语言冋题（出现最多的冋题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：It is no ted that your manu scri pt n eeds careful edit ing by some

8、one with exp ertise in tech ni cal En glish edit ing paying p articular atte nti on to En glish grammar, sp elli ng, 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

9、submissi on; only the n can a proper review be p erformed. Most senten ces con ta in grammatical an d/or sp elli ng mistakes or are not comp lete senten ces.As p rese nted, the writi ng is not acce ptable for the journ al. There are p roblems with sentence structure, verb ten se, and clause con stru

10、cti on.The En glish of your manu scri pt must be impro ved before resubmissi on. We stro ngly 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.PI ease have some one comp ete nt in the En glish Ian guage and the subject matter

11、 of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of En glish n eeds improving.作为审稿人，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

12、，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 4Reviewer Recomme ndatio n Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manu scri pt Rat ing: 25Comme nts to Editor: Reviewers are required to en ter their n ame, affilia

13、tio n and e-mail address below. PI ease n ote this is for adm ini strative purpo ses and will not be see n by the author.Title (P rof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXAffiliati on: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。" it has been synthesized with a nu mber of differ

14、e nt methods and in a variety of forms. Thismanuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contributionmaybe in novel preparation method, stillthis point is not elaborated prop erly (see Remark 1). Prese ntati on and writi ng is rather poor; there are se

15、veral stateme nts not supp orted withdata (for somesee Remarks 2) and even someflaws (see Remark 3). For these reas ons I suggest to reject paper in the p rese nt form.1. The paper describes a new method for prep arati on of XXXX, but:-the new method has to be comp ared with other methods for prep a

16、rati onof XXXXpo wders (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 described why this method is better or differentfrom othermethods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussi on),-it has to be added in the manuscrip

17、t what kind of XXXXXX)y other methods com pared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussi 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 discussi ng XRD data XXXauth

18、ors-state that XXXXX-state that XXXX-This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to p rese nt, den sity, p article 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 sec ond harm onic in excitati on beam

19、it will stay there no matter what type 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 Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Ma nuscri pt Rati ng: N/A Comme nts to Editor:Title （P rof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.Name:（国人）Affiliati on: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDe

20、ar editor:Thank you for invitingmeto evaluate the article titled "XXXX . In thispaper, the authors in vestigatedthe in flue nces of sin teri ngcon diti on onthe crystal structure and XXXXXX ， However, it is difficult for us to un dersta nd the manu scri pt because of poor En glish being used.Th

21、e text is not well arran ged and the logic is not clear. Exce pt En glish writi ng, there are many mistakes in the manu scri pt and the exp erime ntal results don't show good and new results. So I recomme nd to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and som

22、e mistakes in this manu scri pt:（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 author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The s

23、yn thesis method and lumin esce nee prop erties rep orted in this manu scri pt did n't supply eno ugh evide nee to support the p rime no velty stateme nt.（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，（

24、呵呵，我 97年刚上初一没见 到这个文章，哈哈）2. In P age 5, the author men ti oned that: "XXXX Based on our kno wiedge, "sin teri ng" describes the p rocess whe n the po wders become ceramics. So,I think the word "syn thesis" should be better in stead of "sin teri ng"here.Sec ond, the

25、XRD p atter ns did n't show obvious differe nee betwee n three "si nteri ng" temp eratures 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 n't supply the morp hologies of p articles at differe nt syn thesiz

26、 ing temp eratures. What are the exp erime ntal results or the refere nces which support the author's con clusi on that the XXXX prop erties would be in flue need by the p article 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， 加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my kno wledge, after the m

27、illing, theparticlessize will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy thehost structure?（虫子们自己注意）5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, becauseauthor add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra are n ot measured by ordinary methods.（都是老问题，

28、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，

29、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（估计也就是审稿人自 己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，maki ng a refere nee is

30、 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、discussion，这样既照顾到了某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要 一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新

31、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 审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。minor,意见只有寥寥数行,第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是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

32、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, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分 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

33、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：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。 意见2:算法表述不明确。意见3 :对图3的图例应做出解释。审稿人2：意见1 :意见2:图2太小。第3页有个错别字。根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿

34、人意见1之外的所有意见进很显然，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 scri pt is double sp aced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have bee n added in p age 3.LOA3: A p aragra ph has bee n added in p age 5 to further explain the algorithmLOA4: Expla

35、n ati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3 have bee n added in p age 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has bee n enl arged.LOA6: All typos have bee n removed.Respon 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.Respon ses to ReviewersTo Reviewer 1:意见1:置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经

36、被A和B做过。Thank you for pointing this out. A and B' s research groups have 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 have added the followi ng discussi on on this issue in

37、 our revised manu scri pt, 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 followi ngdiscussi on to further exp lai n 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 ingexplan ati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3, see LOA3

38、.“blablablabla （图3图例的解释）”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 typ os, see LOA5.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。htt p:/emuch. net/bbs/viewthread. php ?tid=1493261SCI投稿信件的一些套话（整理）一、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defe ndi ML:by - which I sh

39、ould like to submit for possibI am sending a manu scri pt en titled p ublicati on in the journal of -. Yours sin cerely2. Dear Dr. A:by sb, which we are submitti ng for p ublicati on inEn closed is a manu scri pt en titledjournal of - . We have chose n this journal because it deals with - . We belie

40、ve that sth w be of interest to the journal' s readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Pl ease find en closed for your review an orig inal research article,“” by sb. All authave read and app rove this vers ion of the article, and due care has bee n take n to en sureintegrity of the work. No part of this paper has

41、 published or submitted elsewhere. No con' of in terest exits in the submissi on of this manu scri pt, and we have attached to this lethe sig ned letter gran ti ng us p ermissi on to use Figure 1 from ano ther source.We app reciate your con siderati on of our manu scri pt, and we look forward to

42、 receivi ng comm from the reviewers.二、询问有无收到稿件Dear Editors,We dis patched our manu scri pt to your journal 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 not you have receive

43、d 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 tha n 12 weeks since I submitted our manu scri pt (No: ) for p ossible p ublicatioyour journ al. I have not yet received a reply and am won deri ng whether you have reache decision.I

44、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 con siderable in terest. A few m revisi on are list below.2. This is a well-writte n paper containing in teresti ng results which merit p ublicati on.the

45、 ben efit of the reader, however, a nu mber of points n eed clarify ing and certa in statemrequire further justificati on. There are give n below.3. Although these observati on are in teresti ng, they are rather limited and do not adva neekno wledge of the subject sufficie ntly to warra nt p ublicat

46、i on in PNAS. We suggest that authors try submitt ing their findings to sp ecialist jo urnal 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 maobservati on it describe was

47、rep orted 3 years ago in a repu table journal of -.6. Pl ease ask some one familiar with En glish lan guage to help you rewrite this paper. As will see, I have made some correcti on at the begi nning of the paper where some syn tax is satisfactory.to commu7. Wefeel that this poten tiallyin teresti n

48、g study has bee n marred by an in abilitythe finding correctly in En glish and should like to suggest that the authors seek the ad of some one with a good kno wledge of En glish, p referable n ative sp eaker.of and Su8. The word ing and style of some sect ion, p articularly those concerning HP LC, n

49、 eed car editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion which have bee n un derl in ed.9. P relim inary exp erime nts only have bee n done and with exce pti on of that summarized in T2, none has bee n rep eated. This is clearly un satisfactory, p articularly whe n

50、there is so variati on betwee n assays.10. The con diti on of in cubati on are po orly defi ned. What is the temp erature? Were anti used?五、给编辑的回信1. In reply to the referee' s main criticism of pap er, it is po ssible to say thatOne minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra compo s

51、iti on of the react ion mix in Figure 1. This has now bee n corrected. Further minor cha nges had bee n made on p age 3, p arag 1 (li ne 3-8) and 2 (li ne 6-11). These do not affect our interp retati on of the result.2. I have read the referee ' s comments very carefully and conclude that the pa

52、per hasrejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxi table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity ra than an error or omissi on.3. Thank you for your letter of- and for the referee ' s comments concerni

53、ng our manuscentitled “” . Wehave studied their comments carefullyand have madecorrection which wemeet with their app roval.4. I en closed a revised manu scri pt which in cludes a report of additi onal exp erime nts don the referee ' s suggesti on. You will see that our orig inal findings are co

54、n firmed.5. We are sending the revised manu scri pt accord ing to the comme nts of the reviewers. Rev p orti on are un derl ined in red.6. We found the referee ' s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript7. We are pl eased to note the favorable comme nts of reviewers in their openin

55、g sentenc8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pl eased to lear n that our manu scri pt is acce pt for p ublicati on in Can cer Research with minor revisi on.9. We have therefore compl eted a further series of exp erime nts, the result of which arsummarized in Table 5. From this we con elude that intrin sic factor is not acco unt.of the Paof the c10. Wedeleted the releva nt p assage since they are not esse ntialto the contents11. I feel that the reviewer' s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result fro