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majorrevision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。ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsand

2、resultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.4、

3、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：Theconclusionsareoverstated.Forexample,thestudydidnotshowifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：Ahypothesisneedstobepresented。6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Trytosettheproblemd

4、iscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literaturereview:Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、对claim,如A>B的证明,verification:Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisani

5、mprovementonpreviouswork.10、严谨度问题：MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.11、格式（重视程度）：Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples.Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisp

6、roperlypreparedandformatted.Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"InstructionsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglished

7、itingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspelling

8、mistakesorarenotcompletesentences.Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.Thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinEnglishorwhose

9、nativelanguageisEnglish.PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit?thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.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

10、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)Reviewer4ReviewerRecommendationTerm:RejectOverallReviewerManuscriptRating:25CommentstoEditor:Rev

11、iewersarerequiredtoentertheirname,affiliationande-mailaddressbelow.Pleasenotethisisforadministrativepurposesandwillnotbeseenbytheauthor.Title(Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.):Prof.Name:XXXAffiliation:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscriptentitled"SynthesisXXX。"ithasbeensynthesizedwithanumberofdifferentm

12、ethodsandinavarietyofforms.Thismanuscriptdoesnotbringanynewknowledgeordataonmaterialspropertyandthereforeonlycontributionmaybeinnovelpreparationmethod,stillthispointisnotelaboratedproperly(seeRemark1).Presentationandwritingisratherpoor;thereareseveralstatementsnotsupportedwithdata(forsomeseeRemarks2

13、)andevensomeflaws(seeRemark3).ForthesereasonsIsuggesttorejectpaperinthepresentform.1. ThepaperdescribesanewmethodforpreparationofXXXX,but:- thenewmethodhastobecomparedwithothermethodsforpreparationofXXXXpowders(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),(通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的)- ithast

14、obedescribedwhythismethodisbetterordifferentfromothermethods,(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),- ithastobeaddedinthemanuscriptwhatkindofXXXXXX)yothermethodscomparedtothisnovelone(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),- ithastobeoutlinedwhatisthebene

15、fitofthismethod(ABSTRACT,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION,CONCLUSIONS).(很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊)2. WhendiscussingXRDdataXXXauthors-statethatXXXXX-statethatXXXX-Thisusuallyhappenswithincreasingsinteringtime,butarethereanydatatopresent,density,particlesize?（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. Whendiscussingluminescencemeasu

16、rementsauthorswrite"XXXXXIfthereissecondharmonicinexcitationbeamitwillstaytherenomatterwhattypeofmaterialoneinvestigates!（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）Reviewer5ReviewerRecommendationTerm:RejectOverallReviewerManuscriptRating:N/ACommentstoEditor:Title（Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.Name:（国人）Affiliati

17、on:XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDeareditor:Thankyouforinvitingmetoevaluatethearticletitled”XXXX”.Inthispaper,theauthorsinvestigatedtheinfluencesofsinteringconditiononthecrystalstructureandXXXXXX,However,itisdifficultforustounderstandthemanuscriptbecauseofpoorEnglishbeingused.Thetextisnotwellarranged

18、andthelogicisnotclear.ExceptEnglishwriting,therearemanymistakesinthemanuscriptandtheexperimentalresultsdon'tshowgoodandnewresults.SoIrecommendtoyouthatthismanuscriptcannotbeaccepted.Thefollowingarethequestionsandsomemistakesinthismanuscript:（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

19、,thiskindmaterialhadbeeninvestigatedsince1997asmentionedintheauthor'smanuscript,andsimilarworkshadbeenpublishedinsimilarjournals.Whatarethenovelfindingsinthepresentwork?Thesynthesismethodandluminescencepropertiesreportedinthismanuscriptdidn'tsupplyenoughevidencetosupporttheprimenoveltystatem

20、ent.（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. Inpage5,theauthormentionedthat:"XXXXBasedonourknowledge,"sintering"describestheprocesswhenthepowdersbecomeceramics.S

21、o,Ithinktheword"synthesis"shouldbebetterinsteadof"sintering"here.Second,theXRDpatternsdidn'tshowobviousdifferencebetweenthree"sintering"temperaturesof700,800and900?C.（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊）3. AlsointhepageX,theauthormentionedthat:XXX。However,theauthordidn'tsupply

22、themorphologiesofparticlesatdifferentsynthesizingtemperatures.Whataretheexperimentalresultsorthereferenceswhichsupporttheauthor'sconclusionthattheXXXXpropertieswouldbeinfluencedbytheparticlesize?（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. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXHowever,tomyknowledge,afterth

23、emilling,theparticlessizewillbedecreasedexactly,buthowandwhattodestroythehoststructure?（虫子们自己注意）5. XXXontheverticalaxisoftheXRDpatternswasmeaningless,becauseauthoraddseveralpatternsinonefigure.Itisobviousthatthesespectraarenotmeasuredbyordinarymethods.（者B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

24、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祛码，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，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

25、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，makingareferenceisnotcharity!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

26、了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了majorrevision,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

27、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

28、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ListofActions,ResponsestoEditor,ResponsestoReviewers。第一部分ListofActions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

29、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: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：ListofActionsLOA1:Therevisedmanuscriptisdoublespaced.

30、LOA2:AdiscussiononnoveltyofthisworkandacomparisonwithAandBhavebeenaddedinpage3.LOA3:Aparagraphhasbeenaddedinpage5tofurtherexplainthealgorithm*.LOA4:ExplanationsofthelegendofFigure3havebeenaddedinpage7.LOA5:Figure2hasbeenenlarged.LOA6:Alltyposhavebeenremoved.=页=ResponsestoEditor请在修改稿中用双倍行距。Wehavedoub

31、lespacedthetextthroughouttherevisedmanuscript,seeLOA1.=页=ResponsestoReviewersToReviewer1: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。Thankyouforpointingthisout.AandB'sresearchgroupshavedoneblablablabla.However,thefocusofourworkisonblablablabla,whichisverydifferentfromAandB'swork,andthisisalsothemajorc

32、ontributionofourwork.Wehaveaddedthefollowingdiscussiononthisissueinourrevisedmanuscript,seeLOA2.“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。Wehaveaddedthefollowingdiscussiontofurtherexplainalgorithm*,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。Wehaveaddedthefollowingexplanati

33、onsofthelegendofFigure3,seeLOA3."blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”=页=ToReviewer2:意见1:图2太小。WehaveenlargedFigure2,seeLOA4.意见2:第3页有个错别字。Wehaveremovedalltypos,seeLOA5.=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。SCI投稿信件的一些套话（整理）一、投稿信1. DearDr.DefendiML:Iamsendingamanuscriptentitled""by-wh

34、ichIshouldliketosubmitforpossibpublicationinthejournalof-.Yourssincerely2. DearDr.A:Enclosedisamanuscriptentitled""bysb,whichwearesubmittingforpublicationinjournalof-.Wehavechosenthisjournalbecauseitdealswith-.Webelievethatsthwbeofinteresttothejournal'sreaders.3. DearDr.A:Pleasefindenc

35、losedforyourreviewanoriginalresearcharticle,""bysb.Allauthavereadandapprovethisversionofthearticle,andduecarehasbeentakentoensureintegrityofthework.Nopartofthispaperhaspublishedorsubmittedelsewhere.Noconofinterestexitsinthesubmissionofthismanuscript,andwehaveattachedtothislethesignedletter

36、grantinguspermissiontouseFigure1fromanothersource.Weappreciateyourconsiderationofourmanuscript,andwelookforwardtoreceivingcommfromthereviewers.二、询问有无收到稿件DearEditors,Wedispatchedourmanuscripttoyourjournalon3August2006buthavenot,asyet,recacknowledgementoftheirsafearrival.Wefearthatmayhavebeenlostandsh

37、ouldbegratifyouwouldletusknowwhetherornotyouhavereceivedthem.Ifnot,wewillsendourmanusagain.Thankyouinadvanceforyourhelp.三、询问论文审查回音DearEditors,Itismorethan12weekssinceIsubmittedourmanuscript(No:)forpossiblepublicatioyourjournal.Ihavenotyetreceivedareplyandamwonderingwhetheryouhavereachedecision.Ishou

38、ldappreciatedyourlettingmeknowwhatyouhavedecidedassoonaspossi四、关于论文的总体审查意见1. Thisisacarefullydonestudyandthefindingsareofconsiderableinterest.Afewmrevisionarelistbelow.2. Thisisawell-writtenpapercontaininginterestingresultswhichmeritpublication.thebenefitofthereader,however,anumberofpointsneedclarif

39、yingandcertainstatemrequirefurtherjustification.Therearegivenbelow.3. Althoughtheseobservationareinteresting,theyareratherlimitedanddonotadvanceknowledgeofthesubjectsufficientlytowarrantpublicationinPNAS.Wesuggestthatauthorstrysubmittingtheirfindingstospecialistjournalsuchas一4. Althoughthispaperisgo

40、od,itwouldbeeverbetterifsomeextradatawereadded.5. Thismanuscriptisnotsuitableforpublicationinthejournalof-becausethemaobservationitdescribewasreported3yearsagoinareputablejournalof-.6. PleaseasksomeonefamiliarwithEnglishlanguagetohelpyourewritethispaper.Aswillsee,Ihavemadesomecorrectionatthebeginnin

41、gofthepaperwheresomesyntaxissatisfactory.7. WefeelthatthispotentiallyinterestingstudyhasbeenmarredbyaninabilitytocommuthefindingcorrectlyinEnglishandshouldliketosuggestthattheauthorsseektheadofsomeonewithagoodknowledgeofEnglish,preferablenativespeaker.8. Thewordingandstyleofsomesection,particularlyt

42、hoseconcerningHPLC,needcarediting.AttentionshouldbepaidtothewordingofthosepartsoftheDiscussionofandSuwhichhavebeenunderlined.9. PreliminaryexperimentsonlyhavebeendoneandwithexceptionofthatsummarizedinT2,nonehasbeenrepeated.Thisisclearlyunsatisfactory,particularlywhenthereissovariationbetweenassays.1

43、0. Theconditionofincubationarepoorlydefined.Whatisthetemperature?Wereantiused?五、给编辑的回信1. Inreplytothereferee'smaincriticismofpaper,itispossibletosaythat-Oneminorpointraisedbytherefereeconcernsoftheextracompositionofthereactionmi:inFigure1.Thishasnowbeencorrected.Furtherminorchangeshadbeenmadeonp

44、age3,parag1(line3-8)and2(line6-11).Thesedonotaffectourinterpretationoftheresult.2. Ihavereadthereferee'scommentsverycarefullyandconcludethatthepaperhasrejectedonthesolegroundsthatitlaketoxicitydata.IadmitthatIdidnotincludeatoxitableinmyarticlealthoughperhapsIshouldhavedone.Thiswasforthesakeofbre

45、vityrathananerrororomission.3. Thankyouforyourletterof-andforthereferee'scommentsconcerningourmanuscentitled.Wehavestudiedtheircommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrectionwhichwemeetwiththeirapproval.4. Ienclosedarevisedmanuscriptwhichincludesareportofadditionalexperimentsdonthereferee'ssuggestion

46、.Youwillseethatouroriginalfindingsareconfirmed.5. Wearesendingtherevisedmanuscriptaccordingtothecommentsofthereviewers.Revportionareunderlinedinred.6. Wefoundthereferee'scommentsmosthelpfulandhaverevisedthemanuscript7. Wearepleasedtonotethefavorablecommentsofreviewersintheiropeningsentenc8. Than

47、kyouforyourletter.IamverypleasedtolearnthatourmanuscriptisacceptforpublicationinCancerResearchwithminorrevision.9. Wehavethereforecompletedafurtherseriesofexperiments,theresultofwhicharsummarizedinTable5.Fromthisweconcludethatintrinsicfactorisnotaccount.10. Wedeletedtherelevantpassagesincetheyarenotessentialtothecontentsofthep,11.Ifeelthattherevi