最近在審一篇英文稿，第一次做這個(gè)工作，還有點(diǎn)不知如何表達(dá)。幸虧遇上我的處女審稿，我想不會(huì)槍斃它的，給他一個(gè)majorrevision后接收吧。呵呵
網(wǎng)上找來(lái)一些零碎的資料參考參考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1、目標(biāo)和結(jié)果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someonewith expertise in technical English editing paying particularattention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure sothat the goals and results of the study are clear to thereader.
2、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates andstatistical methods used in the study.
Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these variousexperiments should be provided.
3、對(duì)于研究設(shè)計(jì)的rationale:
Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the studydesign.
4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：
The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did notshow
if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with thepolymer formulation.
5、對(duì)hypothesis的清晰界定：
A hypothesis needs to be presented。
6、對(duì)某個(gè)概念或工具使用的rationale/定義概念：
What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?
7、對(duì)研究問(wèn)題的定義：
Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,
write one section to define the problem
8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫(xiě)literature review:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not sonovel.
9、對(duì)claim,如A＞B的證明，verification:
There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm withpreviously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether thealgorithm is an improvement on previous work.
10、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問(wèn)題：
MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.
11、格式（重視程度）：
In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It isclose but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with"Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.
Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properlyprepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult theformatting nstructions to authors that are given under the"Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner ofthe screen.
12、語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題（出現(xiàn)最多的問(wèn)題）：
有關(guān)語(yǔ)言的審稿人意見(jiàn)：
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someonewith expertise in technical English editing paying particularattention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure sothat the goals and results of the study are clear to thereader.
The authors must have their work reviewed by a propertranslation/reviewing service before submission; only then can aproper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammaticaland/or spelling mistakes or are not completesentences.
As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. Thereare problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clauseconstruction.
The English of your manuscript must be improved beforeresubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from acolleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language isEnglish.
Please have someone competent in the English language and thesubject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it?
the quality of English needs improving.
作為審稿人，本不應(yīng)該把編輯部的這些信息公開(kāi)（冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)啊），
但我覺(jué)得有些意見(jiàn)值得廣大投稿人注意，
就貼出來(lái)吧，當(dāng)然，有關(guān)審稿人的名字，Email，文章題名信息等就都刪除了，
以免造成不必要的麻煩！
希望朋友們多評(píng)價(jià)，其他有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的審稿人能常來(lái)指點(diǎn)大家！
國(guó)人一篇文章投Mater.類知名國(guó)際雜志，
被塞爾維亞一審稿人打25分！
個(gè)人認(rèn)為文章還是有一些創(chuàng)新的，
所以作為審稿人我就給了66分，（這個(gè)分正常應(yīng)該足以發(fā)表），提了一些修改意見(jiàn)，望作者修改后發(fā)表！
登錄到編輯部網(wǎng)頁(yè)一看，一個(gè)文章竟然有六個(gè)審稿人，
詳細(xì)看了下打的分?jǐn)?shù)，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但沒(méi)有打分（另一國(guó)人審），最后一個(gè)沒(méi)有回來(lái)！
兩個(gè)拒的是需要我們反思和學(xué)習(xí)的！
（括號(hào)斜體內(nèi)容為我注解）
Reviewer 4
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25
Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name,affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is foradministrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.
Name: XXX
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。" it has beensynthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety offorms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data onmaterials property and therefore only contribution may be in novelpreparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly(see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there areseveral statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2)and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest toreject paper in the present form.
1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX,but:
- the new method has to be compared with other methods forpreparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTSAND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的寫(xiě)作格式，審稿人實(shí)際上很在意的）
- it has to be described why this method is better or differentfrom other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS ANDDISCUSSION - discussion),
- it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by othermethods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data,RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method(ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).
（很多人不會(huì)寫(xiě)這個(gè)地方，大家多學(xué)習(xí)?。?br>
2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors
- state that XXXXX
- state that XXXX
- This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but arethere any data to present, density, particle size?
（很多人用XRD，結(jié)果圖放上去就什么都不管了，這是不應(yīng)該的）
3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write "XXXXXIfthere is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there nomatter what type of material one investigates!!!
（研究了什么？？？）
4.英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作要提高
（這條很多人的軟肋，大家努力?。?br>
Reviewer 5
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A
Comments to Editor:
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.
Name:（國(guó)人）
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx
Dear editor:
Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. Inthis paper, the authors investigated the influences of sinteringcondition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it isdifficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poorEnglish being used.
The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. ExceptEnglish writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and theexperimental results don't show good and new results. So Irecommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. Thefollowing are the questions and some mistakes in thismanuscript:
（看看總體評(píng)價(jià)，不達(dá)標(biāo)，很多人被這樣郁悶了，當(dāng)然審稿人也有他的道理）
1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigatedsince 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similarworks had been published in similar journals. What are the novelfindings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescenceproperties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enoughevidence to support the prime novelty statement.
（這位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻譯了一邊就敢投國(guó)際知名雜志，而且沒(méi)有新的創(chuàng)新！
朋友們也看到了，一稿多發(fā)，中文，英文雙版發(fā)表在網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代太難了，運(yùn)氣不好審稿人也是國(guó)人，敢情曾經(jīng)看過(guò)你的文章，所以必死無(wú)疑，這位作者老兄就命運(yùn)差了，剛好被審稿人看見(jiàn)，所以毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)被拒，（呵呵，我97年剛上初一沒(méi)見(jiàn)到這個(gè)文章，哈哈））
2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on ourknowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powdersbecome ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be betterinstead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't showobvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700,800 and 900 ?C.
（作者老兄做工作太不仔細(xì)了，蟲(chóng)子們可別犯?。?br>3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles atdifferent synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimentalresults or the references which support the author's conclusionthat the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particlesize?
（作者仍在瞎說(shuō)，這個(gè)問(wèn)題我也指出了，不光我還是看著國(guó)人的份上讓修改，添加很多東西，說(shuō)實(shí)話，文章看的很累很累）
4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, theparticles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what todestroy the host structure?
（蟲(chóng)子們自己注意）
5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless,because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obviousthat these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods.（都是老問(wèn)題，不說(shuō)了）
本站僅提供存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)，所有內(nèi)容均由用戶發(fā)布，如發(fā)現(xiàn)有害或侵權(quán)內(nèi)容，請(qǐng)
點(diǎn)擊舉報(bào)。
