评语大全之英语专业论文评语
动漫帅哥的图片-
评语大全之英语专业论文评语
英语专业论文评语
【篇一：英文论文审稿意见汇总】
英文论文审稿意见汇总
以下
12
点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审
稿人意
见构成。
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.
< br>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
hy
pothesis
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
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
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 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 ……
which you subm
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
3
周，便返回了三份审稿意见。
从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
< br>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
xx
x
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
< br>)
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:
1
there 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.
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: 2
the 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 1
977; 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:
3
1. the author
should accentuate his contributions in this
manuscript.
2.
it lacks analytical
methodologies to support author’s
discoveries.
3. description style material like this
manuscript requires
structured tables
figures for better
presentations.
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.
【篇二：本科毕业论文评语】
英语专业
-
本科毕业论文评语示
例
.................
..................................................
.................. 1
人力资源管理专
业
...............
..................................................
.......................................
.... 2
本科毕业论文评
语
.............................
..................................................
.........................
....
2
“
评阅
教师评语
”
必须包含下列内
容：
.........................................
................................... 3
新闻传媒院本科毕业论文评语的基本内
容
.....................................
.................................... 3
计算机科学系本科毕业论文评语书写方
式
.....................................
.................................... 4
表演本科班毕业论文评
语
.....
..................................................
..........................................
4
体育系本科生毕业论文评
价
..............................
..................................................
.............. 8
英语专业
-
本科毕业论文评语示例
优
秀
指导教
师意见：作者对以学生为中心的英语口语教学中教师的角色
定位展开讨论。选题有较强的
现实意义，论点正确，论据确凿，论述