(完整版)一些英文審稿意見及回復(fù)的模板

1、完美格式整理版一些英文審稿意見的模板最近在審一篇英文稿，第一次做這個(gè)工作，還有點(diǎn)不知如何表達(dá)。幸虧遇上我的 處女審稿，我想不會(huì)槍斃它的，給他一個(gè)major revision后接收吧。呵呵網(wǎng)上找來一些零碎的資料參考參考。+1、目標(biāo)和結(jié)果不清晰。It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and se

2、ntence structure so that the goals and results of the study are 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 expla natio n of why the authors did these various experime nts should be provided.3、

3、對于研究設(shè)計(jì)的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：The con clusi ons are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulatio n.5、對hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis n e

4、eds to be prese nted 。6對某個(gè)概念或工具使用的ratio nale/ 定義概念：What was the rati on ale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、對研究問題的定義：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literature review:The topic is no vel but the applicati on propos

5、ed is not so no vel.9、對 claim,如 A B 的證明，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、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問題：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重視程度）：In

6、 addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close butnot completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with InstructionsforAuthors which shows examples.Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properlyprepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the f

7、ormatting nstructionsto authors that are given under the Instructionsand Formsbutt on in he upper right-ha nd corner of the scree n.12、語言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題）：有關(guān)語言的審稿人意見：It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attenti

8、on toEnglish 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 propertran slatio n/reviewi ng service before submissi on; only the n can a proper review be performed. Most senten ces con ta in g

9、rammatical an d/or spelli ng mistakes or are not complete senten ces.As prese nted, the writi ng is not acceptable for the journ al. There are problems with sentence structure, verb ten se, and clause con structi on.The En glish of your manu script must be improved before resubmissi on. We stro ngly

10、 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.Please have some one compete nt in the En glish Ian guage and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of En glish n eeds impro ving.作為審稿

11、人，本不應(yīng)該把編輯部的這些信息公開（冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?。矣X得有些意見值得廣大投稿人注意，就貼出來吧，當(dāng)然，有關(guān)審稿人的名字，Email，文章題名信息等就都刪除了，以免造成不必要的麻煩！希望朋友們多評價(jià)，其他有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的審稿人能常來指點(diǎn)大家！國人一篇文章投Mater.類知名國際雜志，被塞爾維亞一審稿人打25分！個(gè)人認(rèn)為文章還是有一些創(chuàng)新的，所以作為審稿人我就給了 66分，（這個(gè)分正常應(yīng)該足以發(fā)表），提了一些修改 意見，望作者修改后發(fā)表！登錄到編輯部網(wǎng)頁一看，一個(gè)文章竟然有六個(gè)審稿人，詳細(xì)看了下打的分?jǐn)?shù)，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），拒但沒有打分（另一

12、國人審），最后一個(gè)沒有回來！ 兩個(gè)拒的是需要我們反思和學(xué)習(xí)的!（括號(hào)斜體內(nèi)容為我注解）Reviewer 4Reviewer Recomme ndatio n Term: Reject Overall Reviewer Manu script Rat ing: 25Comme nts to Editor: Reviewers are required to en ter their n ame, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be

13、 seen by the author.Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXAffiliati on: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript entitledSynthesis XXX。 it has been synthesizedwith a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. Thismanuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property

14、and therefore only contributionmaybe in novel preparation method, stillthis point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writi ng is rather poor; there are several stateme nts not supported with data (for somesee Remarks 2) and even someflaws (see Remark 3). For these reas ons I

15、 suggest to reject paper in the prese nt form.1. The paper describes a new method for preparati on of XXXX, but:-the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparati onof XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION-discussio n),(通常的寫作格式，審稿人實(shí)際上很在意的)-it has to be

16、described why this method is better or differentfrom othermethods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussi on),-it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX)y other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - dis

17、cussi on),-it has to be outli ned what is the ben efit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).(很多人不會(huì)寫這個(gè)地方，大家多學(xué)習(xí)啊)2. When discuss ing XRD data XXXauthors-state that XXXXX-state that XXXX-This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, de

18、nsity, particle size?（很多人用XRD結(jié)果圖放上去就什么都不管了，這是不應(yīng)該的）3. Whendiscussing luminescenee measurements authors write XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter whattype of material one inv estigates!（研究了什么？ ？）4. 英語寫作要提高（這條很多人的軟肋，大家努力?。㏑eviewer 5Reviewer Recomme ndatio n

19、Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Ma nuscript Rati ng: N/AComme nts to Editor:Title （Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.Name:（國人）Affiliati on: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDear editor:Thank you for invitingmeto evaluate the article titled XXXX“. In thispaper, the authors in vestigated the in flue ncesof sin teri ngc

20、on diti on onthe crystal structure and XXXXXX ， However, it is difficult for us to un dersta nd the manu script because of poor En glish being used.The text is not well arran ged and the logic is not clear. Except En glish writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental resul

21、ts dont show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manu script:（看看總體評價(jià)，不達(dá)標(biāo)，很多人被這樣郁悶了，當(dāng)然審稿人也有他的道理）1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had bee n inv estigated since1997 as mentioned in the

22、authors manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The syn thesis method and lumin esce nee properties reported in this manu script did nt supply eno ugh evide nee to support the prime no velty stateme nt.（這位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年

23、的中文文章翻譯了一邊就敢投國際知名 雜志，而且沒有新的創(chuàng)新！朋友們也看到了，一稿多發(fā)，中文，英文雙版發(fā)表在網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代太難了，運(yùn)氣不好審稿人也是國人，敢情曾經(jīng)看過你的文章，所以必死無疑，這位作者老兄就命運(yùn) 差了，剛好被審稿人看見，所以毫無疑問被拒，（呵呵，我97年剛上初一沒見到這個(gè)文章，哈哈）2. In page 5, the author men ti oned that: XXXX Based on our kno wledge, sin teri ng describes the process whe n the powders become ceramics. So,I think th

24、e word syn thesis should be better in stead of sin teri nghere.Sec ond, the XRD patter ns did nt show obvious differe nee betwee n three sintering temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 ?C.（作者老兄做工作太不仔細(xì)了，蟲子們可別犯?。?. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。However, the author did nt supply the mor

25、phologies of particles at differe nt syn thesiz ing temperatures. What are the experime ntal results or the refere nces which support the authors con clusi on that the XXXX properties would be in flue need by the particle size?（作者仍在瞎說，這個(gè)問題我也指出了，不光我還是看著國人的份上讓修改，添加很多東西，說實(shí)話，文章看的很累很累）4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

26、However, to my kno wledge, after the milli ng, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?（蟲子們自己注意）5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patter ns was meanin gless, becauseauthor add several patter ns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra

27、are n ot measured by ordinary methods.（都是老問題，不說了）好東西原文地址：對英文審稿意見的回復(fù) 作者：海天奧博一篇稿子從醞釀到成型歷經(jīng)艱辛，投出去之后又是漫長的等待，好容易收到編輯的 回信，得到的往往又是審稿人不留情面的一頓狂批。這時(shí)候，如何有策略有技巧的 回復(fù)審稿人就顯得尤為重要。好的回復(fù)是文章被接收的重要砝碼，而不恰當(dāng)?shù)幕貜?fù) 輕則導(dǎo)致再次修改從而拖延發(fā)稿時(shí)間，重則導(dǎo)致文章被拒，前功盡棄。下面把我平 時(shí)總結(jié)的一些答復(fù)審稿人的策略和寫回復(fù)信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，絕對服從編輯的意見。在審稿人給出各自的意見之后，編輯一般不會(huì)再提出 自己的意見。但

28、是，編輯一旦提出某些意見，就意味著他認(rèn)為這是文章里的重大缺 陷，至少是不合他的口味。這時(shí)，我們唯一能夠做的只能是服從。因?yàn)楫吘故侨思?掌握著生殺予奪的大權(quán)。第二，永遠(yuǎn)不要跟審稿人爭執(zhí)。跟審稿人起爭執(zhí)是非常不明智的一件事情。審稿人 意見如果正確那就不用說了，直接照辦就是。如果不正確的話，也大可不必在回復(fù) 中冷嘲熱諷，心平氣和的說明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血?dú)夥絼偅蝗伺牧水?dāng) 然不爽，被人錯(cuò)拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名門正派里的弟子，看到一審結(jié)果是 major而不是minor本來就已經(jīng)很不爽了，難得抓住審稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出來 打死。有次審稿，一個(gè)審稿人給的意見是增加兩篇參考文獻(xiàn)（估計(jì)也就是審

29、稿人自 己的文章啦），結(jié)果作者在回復(fù)中寫到，maki ng a refere nee is n ot charity!看到之后我當(dāng)時(shí)就笑噴了，可以想象審稿人得被噎成什么樣。正如大家所想的那樣， 這篇稿子理所當(dāng)然的被拒了，雖然后來經(jīng)編輯調(diào)解改成了major revision ，但畢竟耽誤的是作者自己的時(shí)間不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所謂修改就是對文章內(nèi)容進(jìn)行的修改和補(bǔ)充， 所謂argue就是在回復(fù)信中對審稿人的答復(fù)。這其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是 容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟審稿人argue。對于語法、拼寫錯(cuò)誤、某些詞匯的更換、對某些公式和圖表做進(jìn)一步解釋等相對容易做

30、到的修改，一定要 一毫不差的根據(jù)審稿意見照做。而對于新意不足、創(chuàng)新性不夠這類根本沒法改的， 還有諸如跟算法A，B, C, D做比較，補(bǔ)充大量實(shí)驗(yàn)等短時(shí)間內(nèi)根本沒法完成的任務(wù)， 我們則要有理有據(jù)的argue。在Argue的時(shí)候首先要肯定審稿人說的很對，他提出 的方法也很好，但本文的重點(diǎn)是 blablabla ，跟他說的不是一回事。然后為了表示 對審稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段這方面的discussion，這樣既照顧到了審稿人的面子，編輯那也能交待的過去。第四，聰明的掌握修改時(shí)間。拿到審稿意見，如果是 minor,意見只有寥寥數(shù)行， 那當(dāng)然會(huì)情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至幾小時(shí)搞定修改稿。這時(shí)

31、候，問題在于要 不要馬上投回去了？我的意見是放一放，多看一看，兩個(gè)星期之后再投出去。這樣 首先避免了由于大喜過望而沒能及時(shí)檢查出的小毛病，還不會(huì)讓編輯覺得你是在敷 衍他。如果結(jié)果是 major，建議至少放一個(gè)月再投出去，顯得比較鄭重。上面是一些一般性的答復(fù)審稿人的策略，在實(shí)際中的應(yīng)用還需要大家見仁見智。下 面談?wù)劥饛?fù)信的寫法。寫答復(fù)信的唯一目的是讓編輯和審稿人一目了然的知道我們做了哪些修改。因此， 所有的格式和寫法都要圍繞這一目的。一般來說可以把答復(fù)信分成三部分，即Listof Actions, Resp on ses to Editor, Resp on ses to Reviewers。第

32、一部分List ofActio ns的作用是簡明扼要的列出所有修改的條目，讓編輯和審稿人在第一時(shí)間對 修改量有個(gè)概念，同時(shí)它還充當(dāng)著修改目錄的作用，詳見下面的例子。剩下的兩部 分是分別對編輯和審稿人所做的答復(fù)，格式可以一樣，按照“意見”-“ argue”（如 果有的話）-“修改”這樣逐條進(jìn)行。清楚醒目起見，可以用不同字體分別標(biāo)出， 比如“意見”用italic ，“argue”正常字體，“修改”用bold。下面舉例說明各部分的寫法和格式。編輯意見：請?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距。審稿人1：A和B做過。意見1:置疑文章的創(chuàng)新性，提出相似的工作已經(jīng)被 意見2:算法表述不明確。意見3 :對圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋

33、。審稿人2：意見1 :圖2太小。意見2 :第3頁有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字很顯然，根據(jù)上面的答復(fù)策略，我們準(zhǔn)備對除1號(hào)審稿人意見1之外的所有意見進(jìn)行相應(yīng)改動(dòng)，而對1.1采取argue為主的策略。答復(fù)如下：List of ActionsLOA1: The revised manu script is double spaced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have bee n added in page 3.LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 t

34、o further explain the algorithmLOA4: Expla nati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3 have bee n added in page 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has bee n enl arged.LOA6: All typos have bee n removed.=分頁=Resp on ses to Editor請?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距Wehave double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.=分頁=Resp on se

35、s to ReviewersTo Reviewer 1:學(xué)習(xí)好幫手意見1:置疑文章的創(chuàng)新性，提出相似的工作已經(jīng)被A和B做過。Thank you for pointing this out. A and B s research groups ha ve 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 hav

36、e added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manu script, see LOA2.“blablablabla（ 此處把A和B的工作做一個(gè)review，并提出自己工作和他們的區(qū) 別之處）”意見2:算法表述不明確。Wehave added the followingdiscussion to further explain algorithm *, seeLOA3.“ blablablabla（此處進(jìn)一步解釋該算法）”意見3:對圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。Wehave added the follow ing expl

37、a nati ons of the lege nd of Figure 3, see LOA3.“ blablablabla （圖3圖例的解釋）”=分頁=To Reviewer 2:意見1:圖2太小。We have enl arged Figure 2, see LOA 4.意見2:第3頁有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。We have removed all typos, see LOA5.=分頁=總之，寫答復(fù)信的宗旨就是用最少的時(shí)間和工作量達(dá)到論文被接收的目的。這里權(quán) 當(dāng)是拋磚引玉，希望和大家多多交流。http:/emuch. net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1493261SCI投稿信件的

38、一些套話(整理)一、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:I am sending a manuscript entitled“” by which I should like to submit for possibpublicati on in the jour nal of -.Yours sin cerely2. Dear Dr. A:Enclosed is a manuscript entitled“” by sb, which we are submitting for publication injour nal of - . We have chose n thi

39、s jour nal because it deals with - . We believe that sth w be of interest to the journal s readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Please find enclosed for your review an original research article,“” by sb. All authave read and approve this vers ion of the article, and due care has bee n take n to en sure integrityof

40、 the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No con，of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this le the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.We appreciate your con siderati on of our manu script, an

41、d we look forward to receivi ng comm from the reviewers.二、詢問有無收到稿件Dear Editors,We dispatched our manu script to your jour nal 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 n

42、ot you have received them. If not, wewill send our manus aga in. Thank you in adva nee for your help.三、詢問論文審查回音Dear Editors ，It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publicatio your jour nal. I have not yet received a reply and am won deri ng whether you have rea

43、che decision. I should appreciated your lettingmeknow what you have decided as soon as possi四、關(guān)于論文的總體審查意見1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few m revisi on are list below.2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit public

44、ation.the ben efit of the reader, however, a nu mber of points n eed clarify ing and certa in statemrequire further justification. There are given below.3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advanceknowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publicati

45、on in PNAS. We suggest that authors try submitt ing their findings to specialist jour nal such as4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.5. This manu script is not suitable for publicati on in the jour nal of because the maobservation it describe was rep

46、orted 3 years ago in a reputable journal of -.6. Please ask some one familiar with En glish lan guage to help you rewrite this paper. As will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is satisfactory.7. Wefeel that this pote ntiallyin teresti ngstudy has bee n

47、marred by an in ability to commuthe finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the adof some one with a good kno wledge of En glish, preferable n ative speaker.8. The word ing and style of some sect ion, particularly those concerning HPLC, n eed carediting. Attenti

48、on should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Su which have bee n un derl in ed.9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in T2, none has bee n repeated. This is clearly un satisfactory, particularly whe n there is so variation be

49、tween assays.10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were anti used?五、給編輯的回信1. In reply to the referee s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say thatOne minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra compositi on of the react ion mi: in Figure 1.

50、This has now bee n corrected. Further minor cha nges had bee n made on page 3, parac 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referee s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper hasrejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxi

51、city data. I admit that I did not include a toxi table in my articlealthough perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rathan an error or omissi on.3. Thank you for your letter of- and for the referee s comments concerning our manuscentitled “” . Wehave studied their comments care

52、fullyand have madecorrection which wemeet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments don the referee s suggesti on. You will see that our orig inal findings are con firmed.5. We are sending the revised manu script accord ing to the comme

53、nts of the reviewers. Rev porti on are un derl ined in red.6. We found the referee s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript7. We are pleased to note the favorable comme nts of reviewers in their ope ning sentenc8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manu scr

54、ipt is acceptfor publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which arsummarized in Table 5. From this we con elude that intrin sic factor is not acco unt.10. Wedeleted the releva nt passage since they are not esse ntial to the contents of the p,11. I feel that the reviewer s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from amisi nterpr