英文审稿意见汇总

上传人:飞*** 文档编号:31071308 上传时间:2018-02-04 格式:DOC 页数:49 大小:100.50KB
返回 下载 相关 举报
英文审稿意见汇总_第1页
第1页 / 共49页
英文审稿意见汇总_第2页
第2页 / 共49页
英文审稿意见汇总_第3页
第3页 / 共49页
英文审稿意见汇总_第4页
第4页 / 共49页
英文审稿意见汇总_第5页
第5页 / 共49页
点击查看更多>>
资源描述

《英文审稿意见汇总》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《英文审稿意见汇总(49页珍藏版)》请在金锄头文库上搜索。

1、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, th

2、ere is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods 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 co

3、nclusions 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:T

4、ry to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem8、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 AB 的证明,verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previous

5、ly 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

6、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 c

7、orner 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

8、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 jo

9、urnal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English. Please have

10、someone competent in the English language and the subject matter 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 been edited because the subject is

11、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 of publication. The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with gramm

12、atical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your effort compares with state-of-the-art? The experiment is the ma

13、jor problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimental result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this resu

14、lt? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement? the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words. it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language. The authors did a good job in motivating the

15、problem studied in the introduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors propose. Apparently, Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humb

16、le opinion如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病,一般你可以用you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .according to review comments.如果是接受,你可以用We are very pleased to inform you that your paper xxxxx has been accepted by journal name. Please prepare your paper by journal template.At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece ofwork, reporting on . Fine, good quality, but all this has be

展开阅读全文
相关资源
正为您匹配相似的精品文档
相关搜索

最新文档


当前位置:首页 > 行业资料 > 其它行业文档

电脑版 |金锄头文库版权所有
经营许可证:蜀ICP备13022795号 | 川公网安备 51140202000112号