《SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总（5页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、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 ar
2、e 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 experimentsshould be provided.3、对于研究设计的 rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the ratio
3、nale 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
4、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 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 A B 的证明，verification:There is no
5、 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. I
6、t is close but notcompletely correct. I have attached a pdfInstructions for Authors whichshows 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 Instru
7、ctions 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
8、 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 pr
9、esented, 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. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English o
10、r whose native language is English. Please have 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
11、 once it has be en 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 of publication. 本文来自 CSDN 博客 ，
12、转载请标明出处 ： .aspx老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见Ms. Ref. No.: *Title: *Materials Science and EngineeringDear Dr. *,Reviewers have now commented on your p aper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If youare prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my de
13、cision.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 serious limits:1) the overall quality of t
14、he 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 add
15、ressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal来源: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
