SCI英文論文審稿意見(jiàn)匯總[共6頁(yè)]

1、英文論文審稿意見(jiàn)匯總以下 12 點(diǎn)無(wú) 輕重主 次之分。每一點(diǎn)內(nèi) 容由總 結(jié)性標(biāo)題和代表性 審稿人 意見(jiàn)構(gòu)成。1 、目 標(biāo)和結(jié) 果不清晰。It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone withexpertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to Englishgrammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of thestudy a

2、re clear to the reader.2 、未 解釋研 究方法或解 釋不充 分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these variousexperimentsshould be provided.3 、對(duì) 于研究 設(shè)計(jì)的 rationale:Also, there are few explanations of th

3、e rationale for the study design.4 、夸 張地陳 述結(jié)論 /夸 大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymerformulation.5 、對(duì) hypothesis 的清 晰界定 ：A hypothesis needs to be presented 。6 、對(duì) 某個(gè)概 念或工具使 用的 rationale/

4、定 義概念 ：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7 、對(duì) 研究問(wèn) 題的定義：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8 、如 何凸現(xiàn) 原創(chuàng)性以及 如何充 分地寫(xiě) literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9 、對(duì) claim, 如 A B 的證明

5、 ，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously knownwork, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement onprevious work.10 、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn) 度問(wèn)題：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11 、 格 式 （ 重視程 度 ） ： In addition, the list of refere

6、nces is not in our style. It is close but notcompletely correct. I have attached a pdf Instructions for Authors whichshows examples. Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly preparedand formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions toauthors that

7、are given under the Instructions and Forms button in he upperright-hand corner of the screen.12 、語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題（ 出現(xiàn)最 多 的問(wèn)題） ：有 關(guān)語(yǔ)言 的審稿 人 意見(jiàn)： It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone withexpertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to Englishgrammar, spelling, and

8、 sentence structure so that the goals and results of thestudy are clear to the reader. The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewingservice before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Mostsentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are n

9、ot completesentences. As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. Westrongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who

10、is well -versed in English or whose native language is English. Please have someone competent in the English language and the subjectmatter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ? the quality of English needs improving.來(lái) 自編輯的 鼓 勵(lì) ：Encouragement from reviewers: I would be very glad to re-re

11、view the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting. There is continued interest in your manuscript titled which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials. The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy

12、 of publication.本 文 來(lái) 自 CSDN 博 客 ，轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)標(biāo)明 出處： .aspx老 外 寫(xiě) 的 英 文綜述 文 章 的審稿 意 見(jiàn)Ms. Ref. No.: *Title: *Materials Science and EngineeringDear Dr. *,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If youare prepared to undertake the work requi

13、red, I would be pleased to reconsider mydecision.For your guidance, reviewers comments are appended below.Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-basedmethods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest,however the paper suffers for two serio

14、us limits:1) the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also thesynthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examplespublished), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ;On

15、ce the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be acceptedfor publication in this journal來(lái)源 :這是 一篇全過(guò)程我均比 較了解 的投 稿，稿 件 的內(nèi) 容我認(rèn)為是相 當(dāng)不錯(cuò) 的，中 文版投稿于 業(yè)內(nèi)有較高影響的 某核心 期刊 ，并 很 快得到 發(fā)表。其 時(shí)我 作為審 稿人之 一，除了提 出一些修改建議外 ，還特 建議了 5 篇應(yīng) 增加的參考文獻(xiàn)，該 文正 式發(fā)表 時(shí)共計(jì)有參 考文獻(xiàn) 25 篇。作者 或許看到審 稿意見(jiàn) 還不 錯(cuò)，因 此決意 嘗試向美國(guó) 某學(xué)會(huì) 主辦的 一份

16、英 文刊 投稿。 幾經(jīng)修改和補(bǔ)充后 ，請(qǐng)一 位英 文“功底 較好的中國(guó)人翻譯，投稿后約3 周，便返回了三份 審稿意見(jiàn) 。從英文 刊的反饋意見(jiàn)看， 這篇稿件中最嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題是 文獻(xiàn)綜述和引用 不夠，其次是 語(yǔ)言表達(dá) 方面的欠缺，此外是 論證過(guò)程 和 結(jié)果展示形式 方面的不足。感想：一篇好的論文，從內(nèi)容到形式都需要精雕細(xì)琢。附 1：中譯審稿意見(jiàn)審稿意見(jiàn) 1(1) 英文 表達(dá)太差，盡管意思大致能表達(dá)清楚，但文法錯(cuò)誤太多。(2) 文獻(xiàn)綜述較差，觀點(diǎn)或論斷應(yīng)有文獻(xiàn)支持。(3)論文讀起來(lái)像是 XXX 的廣告，不知道作者與 XXX 是否沒(méi)有關(guān)聯(lián)。(4)該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多 XX 采取此模式

17、（如美國(guó)地球物理學(xué)會(huì)），作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析 XXX 運(yùn)作模式的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。(5)該模式也不是作者所說(shuō)的那樣成功 (審稿人結(jié)合論文 中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析 )審稿意見(jiàn) 2(1) 缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)引用 (如 )。(2) 寫(xiě)作質(zhì)量達(dá)不到美國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。審稿意見(jiàn) 3(1) 作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻(xiàn)。(2) 缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。(3) 需要采用表格和圖件形式展示 (數(shù)據(jù) )材料。附 2：英文審稿意見(jiàn)(略有刪節(jié))Reviewer: 1There are many things wrong with this paper.The English is very bad. Although the

18、 meaning is by and largeclear, not too many sentences are correct.The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertionsand claims that should be supported by references.The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear thatthe author is independent of XXX.The AA model of XXX

19、 is not as innovative as the author claims.There are now many XX that follow this model (AmericanGeophysical Union, for example), and the author should surveythese model to see which one first introduced the elements of theXXX model.The model is also not as successful as the author claims. Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can onlymean that I reject that the paper be reject