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hypothesis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 \ ◆ 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(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.
英文论文审稿意见英文版
