英文论文审稿意见英文版
郑州海洋馆门票多少钱-
英文论文审稿意见汇总
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
h
ypothesis
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<
/p>
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
◆
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
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
itted to the Journal of
Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied
Biomat
erials.
◆
The Submission has been greatly
improved and is worthy of publication.
老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见
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
这是一篇全过程我均比较了解的投稿，
稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的，
中文版投稿于业内
有较高影响的某核心期刊，
并很快
得到发表。
其时我作为审稿人之一，
除了提出一些修改建
议外，还特建议了
5
篇应增加的参考文献，该
文正式发表时共计有参考文献
25
篇。
作者或许看到
审稿意见
还不错，
因此决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份
英文
刊
投稿。
几经修
改和补充后，请一位
英文
“功底
较好的中国人翻译，投稿后约<
/p>
3
周，便返回了三份
审稿意
见
。
从
< br>英文
刊的反馈意见看，
这篇稿件中最严重的问题是
文献综述和引用
不够，
其次是
语言表达
方面的欠缺，此外是
论证过程
和
结果展示形式
方面的不足。
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
(<
/p>
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。
Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by
two reviewers, and their
comments are
as follows:
The Comments by
the First Reviewer
Editor:
Michael A. Duncan
Reviewer: 68
Manuscript Number: jp067440i
Manuscript Title: Restricted Geometry
Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate
Stabilization Energies for Aromatic
Molecules of Various Types
Corresponding Author:
Yu
Recommendation: The paper is probably
publishable, but should be reviewed again in
revised form before it is
accepted.
Additional
Comments:
In the present work the
authors introduce a new energy-based
aromaticity measure. Referred as
restricted geometry optimization, the extra
stabilization energy (ESE) is
calculated by means of an energy scheme in which
the
different double bonds are
localized. This methodology is applied to
different sets of
aromatic systems, and
the results are compared to previous already
existing schemes.
This procedure seems
to work better than previous ones, however it must
be
underlined that with a much greater
complexity. It avoids having to choose a
reference structure, and it is worth
noticing that benzene appears to be the most
aromatic system. Thus the method
presented might mean a new contribution to the
different aromacity criteria, however
before acceptance for publication I would
recommend important changes to be taken
into account in the manuscript.
The new method used is
not presented in a comprehensible way. In the
second
paragraph of the Introduction
the authors should already describe it, and not
first
presenting the results for
benzene and not going into the method till the
second
section. The formulas used must
be described precisely as well. So I would
recommend that before acceptance the
manuscript should be rewritten in order to
make it more comprehensible not only to
physical chemists but also to the
experimental chemical community, and at
the same time to improve the English
used.
Other minor points
are:
- First line of Introduction:
aromaticity is one of the most important concepts
in
organic chemistry, but most of
organic compounds are not aromatic.- Introduction,
line 4: notice that only energetic ways
of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned,
however geometry-based (HOMA),
magnetic-based (NICS) and electronic-based
(SCI, PDI) methods are also important,
and this point should be pointed out.
-
Section 3.1, last line of first paragraph: is
B3LYP chosen just because it gives
similar results to HF and MP2? This
should be pointed out in the manuscript.
- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by
going deeper into the data in Figure 8.
Review Sent Date:
18-Dec-2006
***************************************
**
The Comments by the
Second Reviewer
Editor:
Michael A. Duncan
Reviewer: 67
Manuscript Number: jp067440i
Manuscript Title: Restricted Geometry
Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate
Stabilization
Energies for Aromatic Molecules of
Various Types
Corresponding
Author:
Yu
Recommendation: The paper is probably
publishable, but should be reviewed again in
revised form before it is accepted.
Additional Comments:
Comments on the manuscript
Estimate Stabilization Energies for
Aromatic Molecules of Various
Types
Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng Bao
Authors propose a restricted geometry
optimization technique subject to pi orbital
interaction constraints as a new
measure of aromaticity. The approach is
interesting
and has certain merits. My
main objection is that the manuscript is difficult
to read
and understand, mainly because
of poor English. A substantial revision in this
respect
would be beneficiary.
各位：
新的恶战开始了。投往
JASA
的文章
没有被拒，但被批得很凶。尽管如此，审稿人和编辑
还是给了
我们一个修改和再被审的机会。我们应当珍惜这个机会，
不急不火。我们首
先要有个修改的指导思想。大家先看看审稿意见吧。
-----
邮件原件
-----
Manuscript #07-04147:
Editor's
Comments:
This is my personal addition to the
automatically generated email displayed
above. Your manuscript has now been
read by three knowledgeable reviewers,
each of whom has provided thoughtful
and detailed comments on the paper. The
main points of the reviews are self-
explanatory and mostly consistent across
the reviews. Your presentation needs to
be reworked substantially, and the
reviews give you many suggestions for
doing so. Clearly, the introduction
needs to be much more concise and
focused on the main questions you propose
to answer, and why these questions are
important. The rationale for selecting this
unusual
condition must be clear. Your
discussion should focus on how the questions have
been
answered
and
what
they
mean.
The
results
section
is
heavily
dependent
on
statistical
analyses that did not satisfy the
reviewers. The figures and tables could be
improved and
perhaps consolidated. The
methods could be shortened. For example, I think
readers
would take your word that these
were nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could
simply
cite some other work where they
were used. In general, it is unusual to present
the first
results as late as page 17 of
a manuscript.
Beyond the issues of presentation, some
serious questions are raised by the
reviewers about the design. The most
notable (but not the only problem) is
that there are no conditions where
young and older listeners can be compared
at nearly the same performance level in
the baseline condition, and that at
least floor effects and potentially
ceiling effects are likely to
significantly influence the
older/younger comparison. The older listeners
are tested at only one signal-to-noise
ratio, at which performance was
extremely poor. This asymmetric design
where data for three signal-to-masker
ratios are available for the younger
listeners but only one for the older
listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the
comparison could have been salvaged
if
you had guessed a little better in selecting the
signal-to-masker ratio
for the older
listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't
adjust to it.
I'm sorry to say that in
my opinion this problem is so serious that it
precludes publication of t!
he
older versus younger data in JASA,
as I see no way of making a valid
comparison with things as they are.
Further, after reading the manuscript
and the reviews, it seems to me that
even the subjective impression
comparison is difficult to interpret
because of the different sensation
levels at which the older and younger
groups listened (if the target was
fixed at 56 dBA).
The Brungart et al. and
Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker
delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64
ms range would seem to have been a
nice
springboard for your study in older listeners.
Would it not have been
cleaner to have
replicated those conditions with younger subjects
in your
lab, and then tested older
listeners to see whether the patterns of data
were different? There, at least, the
target stimulus condition itself is not
varying and there are archival data out
there for comparison. As the reviews
point out, your conditions present
brand new complications because the ITI
changes the spatial impression of the
target, may change the energetic
masking of the target, and distorts the
target temporally all at the same
time.
Although the temporal distortions did not impair
performance
substantially in quiet,
they may well in noise. Further, the spatial
impressions created by the target in
quiet are likely to be very different
than those when the target is at v!
ery
low sensation levels in
masking. Please investigate the literature on the
influence of sensation level and noise
on the strength of the precedence
effect, particularly the perception of
Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on
this and published the results in JASA
in 1998, but the first observation that
noise can influence the breaking
apart
of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back
at least to Thurlow
and Parks (1961).
To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to
are often
accompanied by reflections,
and I am not questioning the general validity of
your conditions. However, it is
important that your experimental design
allows you separate out the various
contributions to your results.
I think there are several
options for you to consider: (1) If you think it
is very important to publish all the
data you have right now, you could
withdraw the manuscript and attempt to
publish the data in another journal.
(2) You could argue that the reviewers
and I are wrong about the seriousness
of the floor effect with the older
listeners and submit a revision that
includes the same data while making a
convincing case for the validity of
the
older/younger comparison. Although this option is
open to you, I don't
think this is a
promising alternative. (3) You could collect more
data on
older listeners under more
favorable conditions where performance is better.
With the added data this could either
be a new manuscript, or, if such data
were collected and the paper rewritten
in a reasonable amount of time, it
could be considered a revision of the
current manuscript. The revision would
be sent back to the reviewers. Of
course, I cannot promise in advance that a
manuscript
even with these new data
would be judged favorably by the reviewers. (4)
You
could drop the older/younger
comparison from the manuscript and submit a
much shorter version that includes only
the younger data and focuses on the
noise masker/speech masker distinction,
perhaps analyzing your data to draw
inferences about release from energetic
versus informational masking from
the
data. Here too, it will be important to provide a
clear rationale for
what your specific
question is about release from masking, why your
conditions were chosen, and what new
insights your data offer. I still worry
about how spatial effects and the
effects of temporal distortions are to be
distinguished. (5) You could simply
withdraw the manuscript and consider a
more straightforward design for asking
the questions you want to ask with
older listeners.
Thank your for submitting
your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternatives
described will help guide you on how
you should proceed from here. Whatever
you decide to do, please consider the
reviewers' comments very carefully as
they have gone out of their way to
provide you with suggestions on improving
the presentation.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Freyman
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
Reviewer #1 (Good
Scientific Quality):
No. See attached
Reviewer #1 (Appropriate
Journal):
Yes
Reviewer #1
(Satisfactory English/References):
No.