Paper-Review-写法

paperreview的一般写法一篇PaperReview按照内容可以分为三个部分：1、这篇Paper的概况。谁写的？在哪儿写的？哪年发表的等等……2、这篇Paper的内容。3、你对这篇Paper的看法。详细点来说是这样的：第一部分：文章概况这部分是最为简单和公式化的，内容主要是文章的作者，作者所处的位置，文章的出处：会议论文还是期刊，或者是网上的资料，文章的读者是哪些。如果有必要，可以在这部分加入对文章整体的简略评价。第二部分：文章内容这部分也是比较公式化的。因为每一篇合格的论文都会包含一下的几个部分：1.background背景2.problem/hypothesis问题/假设3.solution/argumentation解决方案/论证4.experimentaltest/conclusion实验/结论把每个点用一句话来概括就可以了，要注意的是不必叙述每个细节，把文章的主线理清楚就可以了。第三部分：你的看法这部分是最为重要的，你的评价应该直接反映该篇文章对你的研究有何意义、文章的强处以及弱处。你对文章的评价可以分为三层。最高层的是对文章的内容的评价，例如方法是否新颖，解决的问题是否有意义，所用的实验步骤、实验对象是否合适，结论是否正确。第二层是关于文章的结构和风格的，如论述的组织是否合理，论证的过程有没有漏洞，文章的段落结构有没有问题等等。最底层的是关于文章的用词以及语法方面的评价，句子是否通顺，词语是否恰当，有没有更好的表达方式等等。三层的重要性是递减的，最上面的那一层是最重要的，这应该是你读文章的重点，也应该是你写Review的重点。关于一些写Review的细节问题，可以查看这篇出自UniversityofMassachusettsLowell的文章。里面列出了一些写Review的该注意的问题，不过比较凌乱。此外，还有一点是需要注意的。写PaperReview要写得批判性，即Critical，可是又不能写成Negative的。在我们评论别人文章的不足的时候，我们应该在后面加上一些可能的改进意见。如果是纯粹的批判对自己或对别人的改进没有丝毫的帮助。Reviewers'comments:Reviewer#1:Referee'sreport:Inthemanuscripttheauthorsrepresentthecomparisonofseveralequationsofstatesandtheirapplicationstosomealloys.TheyobtainedtheconclusionthatthesocalledLiequationhasthebestperformancewiththesmallestfittingerrors.Iwouldrecommenditspublicationinitsproperform,however,aftermanyimportantmodifications.1)ThetitleFour-ParameterLiEquationofstateinAlloyhastobemodified.FromwhatIlearnedfromthismanuscript,theauthorsmainlydiscussedthecomparisonofseveraldifferentEOSsandtheiraccurancies.IwouldsuggestthatthetitleisinsuchaformComparisionof.....2)Inabstract,thecontenthastobeclarified.A)becausebothLiand4-parameterBirch-MurnaghanEOSsarebasedonthefourparameters,IthinkthattheauothersneedtoshowwhatisdifferencebetweenthesetwoEOSs.B)Icannotunderstandwhenthefittingenergyvs.volumepointsarescatteredinawidescaleorhavealargenumberofdatatofit.Doesitmeanthattheobtainedenergy-vs-volumecurvesarenotsmoothing?Inaddition,alargenumberofdatatofitshouldnotbeaproblemfortheapplicationofvariousEOS.Intermsofmyexperiences,thelargenumberofdataisbettertofitEOS.C)TwosentencesMoreover,itisfoundthatLiequationhasthebestperformanceamongtheseexponentialEOSswiththesmallestfittingerrorsandThefurthercomparisonofthefittingthepressurevs.volumepointsshowsthatLiequationperformsasthebestoneaswellamongtheexponentialEOSs.Iamfeelingverysadforthesetwosentences.Theymeanthesamesentence.3)Englishhastobepolishedinamorereadableway,althoughtheauthorsareChinesespeakers.Iwouldsuggestthattheauthorsinvitesomepersonstohelpthemtopolishthelanguange.Inaddition,manysetencesarerepeatedseveraltimesinthemanuscript.4)Page3,inthesecondparagraph,theauthorspresentedNevertheless,theaccuracyatultra-highpressureisremainingdisputed.Iguessthattheauthorshouldshowsomethingmoreonthissentence.Itisnotclear.WhydoestheaccuracyoftheseEOSremaindisputed?Indeed,inthemanuscripttherearemanysimilarsentenceswhichareneededtobeclarified.Here,Iwouldnotlistonebyone.Reviewer#2:Inthepresentmanuscript,itwasfirstproposedthattheequationsofstate(EOS)couldbeclassifiedintotwogroups,i.e.linearandexponentialones,andthentheseEOSscurrentlyusedinmetalsandalloyswerecomparedindetail.Basedonthecomparison,theauthorconcludedthatLiequationpresentsitselfmuchbetterperformancethatotherEOS.Besides,theultimatestrengthandcriticalvolumewerederivedfromtheEOSformorethanfortiesmetalliccompoundsoralloys.Theconclusionsoundsconsiderablyconvincedandthemanuscriptiswellorganized.Thoughthepresentworkissimplebutitisveryinterestingandusefulforthecondensedmatterphysicistaswellasthematerialsscientist.Therefore,IwouldrecommendpublishingitontheModernPhysicsLettersB.Minorrevisions:Thepresentfiguresseemtoofaint.Theauthorshouldredrawthefiguressoasthattheycouldbedecipherableeasily.ComputationalMaterialsScience,ManuscriptNo:COMMAT-D10-00972“Classificationofequation…..”byX.ChangandY.KongTheauthorshavere-analyzedpublisheddataofEOSbasedonfirst-principlescalculations.Historically,thevalidityoftheEOSsproposedinliteraturehasbeenanalyzedbyvariousauthors,andassuchtherearenumerouspublicationsbesidesthosecitedinthemanuscript,includingabook[1],maybefound.Bydefinition,EOSdealswithP,VandTrelations.Theyareclassifiedasisothermal(orstatic)andthermalEOS.Inthispaper,authorshaveconsideredonlyisothermalEOS.IssuesrelatedtothermalEOSwereneglectedeitherdeliberatelyorinadvertently.ThermalEOShasbeendiscussedatgreatlength,seeref.1-3.Themanuscriptsuffersfromimportantdrawbacks:EvenforisothermalorstaticEOS,atruetestforthevalidityofEOSmustconsidervarylargepressurerange(see,ref.4fordetaileddiscussion)andwidevarietyofmaterialshavingdifferentkindofbonding.Forexample,theauthorsdidnotevenbothertoconsidergaseslikeH2andNe,andmetalslikeTaandPt.ItiswellestablishedinliteraturethatVinet’sEOSworksverywellforawidevarietyofmaterialsandforuptohighpressurei.e.,validatedbyexperimentaldata.Incontrast,thedataconsideredinthismanuscript(inTable2,3and4)arebasedonfirst-principlescalculations,andusuallytheyrepresentarathersmallpressurerangewhichisinsufficienttotestthevalidityofEOSs.Inasmallpressurerange,allEOSsworknearlyequallywell!Inotherwords,theauthorsmustconsiderexperimentaldataoverawiderangeofpre