英文综述审稿意见

英文综述审稿意见【篇一：英文论文审稿意见汇总】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。itisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalenglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoenglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。◆ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.◆furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：theconclusionsareoverstated.forexample,thestudydidnotshowifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：ahypothesisneedstobepresented。6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：whatwastherationaleforthefilm/sbfvolumeratio?7、对研究问题的定义：trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literaturereview:thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、对claim,如a＞b的证明，verification:thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.10、严谨度问题：mnqiseasierthantheprimitivepnqs,howtoprovethat.11、格式（重视程度）：◆inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.ihaveattachedapdffilewithinstructionsforauthorswhichshowsexamples.◆beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted.ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenundertheinstructionsandformsbuttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆itisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalenglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoenglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.◆theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.◆aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.◆theenglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinenglishorwhosenativelanguageisenglish.◆pleasehavesomeonecompetentintheenglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?◆thequalityofenglishneedsimproving.来自编辑的鼓励：encouragementfromreviewers:◆iwouldbeverygladtore-reviewthepaperingreaterdepthonceithasbeeneditedbecausethesubjectisinteresting.◆thereiscontinuedinterestinyourmanuscripttitled……whichyousubmittedtothejournalofbiomedicalmaterialsresearch:partb-appliedbiomaterials.◆thesubmissionhasbeengreatlyimprovedandisworthyofpublication.老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见ms.ref.no.:******title:******materialsscienceandengineeringdeardr.******,reviewershavenowcommentedonyourpaper.youwillseethattheyareadvisingthatyoureviseyourmanuscript.ifyouarepreparedtoundertaketheworkrequired,iwouldbepleasedtoreconsidermydecision.foryourguidance,reviewerscommentsareappendedbelow.reviewer#1:thisworkproposesanextensivereviewonmicromulsion-basedmethodsforthesynthesisofagnanoparticles.assuch,thematterisofinterest,howeverthepapersuffersfortwoseriouslimits:1)theoverallqualityoftheenglishlanguageisratherpoor;2)somefiguresmustbeselectedfrompreviousliteraturetodiscussalsothesynthesisofanisotropicallyshapedagnanoparticles(thereareseveralexamplespublished),whichhasbeenlargelyoverlookedthroughoutthepaper.;oncetheaboveconcernsarefullyaddressed,themanuscriptcouldbeacceptedforpublicationinthisjournal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。附2：英文审稿意见(略有删节)reviewer:1therearemanythingswrongwiththispaper.theenglishisverybad.althoughthemeaningisbyandlargeclear,nottoomanysentencesarecorrect.theliteraturereviewispoor.thepaperisriddledwithassertionsandclaimsthatshouldbesupportedbyreferences.thepaperreadsasanadvertisementforxxx.itisnotclearthattheauthorisindependentofxxx.theaamodelofxxxisnotasinnovativeastheauthorclaims.therearenowmanyxxthatfollowthismodel(americangeophysicalunion,forexample),andtheauthorshouldsurveythesemodeltoseewhichonefirstintroducedtheelementsofthexxxmodel.themodelisalsonotassuccessfulastheauthorclaims.……overall,thepresentationandthecontentsofthepapercanonlymeanthatirejectthatthepaperberejected.reviewer:2thearetwomajorproblemswiththispaper:(1)itismi