英文科技文献专家审稿常见意见

转自：http://forum.e2002.com/archiver/?tid-475810.html 【分享】英文科技文献专家审稿常见意见 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 are 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 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 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 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 problem 8、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 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. It is close 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 properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting instructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in the 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 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 presented, 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 or 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 once it has been 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. 审稿意见 很多投稿出去的文章都是可上可下的。往往退稿的时候，审稿人提了一堆意见，说退稿。但是大家想过没有？如果能事先预测到这些意见，根据这些意见修改好了再投出去，说不定能一举命中！俗话说，“与人方便就是与己方便”。我的要点是：自己在投稿前得好好修改文章，减少错误率才能让审稿人给与自己方便！本人为20多个国际杂志审过近百篇稿子，现在我来总结一些读稿和审稿遇到的常见问题。这些问题主要是写作方面的问题，而非具体的学术观点、学术论证对不对的问题。 1）标题不明确、太宽泛。好比说“Influence of Mixed Solvents on Growth Kinetics of Crystals”。这里，读者不知道作者用了什么混合溶剂，研究了什么晶体的生长。 2）摘要炒作概念，没有科学性的实质内容。读者看到的是云里雾里的概念，不清楚作者用什么方法研究了什么。 3）关键词太长，或者太宽泛，不是关键词。如the development of solid strong acids太长，应改为solid strong acids。再比如organic chemistry不能成为关键词，因为太宽泛，用organic chemistry来搜索文献，可以查到无数文献，因此丧失了关键词的作用。 4）引言一开始帽子扣得太大，扯得太远。比如有人研究一种新型吸附剂处理废水中的砷，便花了很大篇幅引述医学研究结果说砷对人体细胞有很大危害。其实这些都是常识，应该直奔主题。 5）引言没有突出新颖性，师出无名。读者不知道作者为什么要做这个工作，有什么新颖性，对后续基础研究和应用开发有什么价值。读者只看到作者为了做实验而做实验。 6）引言中没有正确的上下文。没有合理引用自己和别人相关工作，或者粗描淡写、一笔带过。于是，读者不知道作者的工作究竟是首次报道还是别人早就研究过很多次了，作者的可信度（credibility）受到了质疑。 7）引用文献不贴切，为了强调自己的新颖性故意把相关文献引用在角落里。比如一篇文章的卖点已经报到过了，作者故意不说这个事实，而是在角落里引用前人的关键文章来证明自己文章的一个小的结论（如谱峰的归属）。 8）有的地方明显没有引用文献，明显错误。如“It was reported that…”，句子的结尾却没有引文！ 9）引言没有章法，没有结构和层次。写了很多段，想到哪里写到哪里，有的一段话才一句话。 10）实验部份语焉不详，不可重复。比如说有的人写什么东西加到什么东西里面，却没说浓度是什么，加了多少，有无搅拌，搅拌时间是多少。 11）实验部份如实验记录本，每一段一行。读起来如武打小说书。 12）文章主体部分很长，明显可以分为几个部份，加上小标题，却没有这么做。 13）表述不清楚。说自己的结果和某文献不同，却不描述怎么不同。说自己的催化剂组分和别人催化剂组分不同，却不说清别人的催化剂组分是什么。说峰位置有区别，见某图，但不描述怎么不同，峰的归属是什么，说明了什么信息。 14）没有新意，重复别人已经报道过的东西。 15）没有科学内容，读起来如高中生的实验。如卖狗皮膏药、变戏法的。 16）没有洞察力和深邃的见解，只是描述现象、堆积数据，没有理论深度。 17）讨论和引言雷同，只是综述文献，没有自己提出的要点。 18）写文章到最后嘎然而止，没有客观分析本文的意义和局限性，没有前景展望，编辑就想：既然你的文章工作完整了，到此为之了，那么说，读者在这篇文章基础上没有东西可做了？也就是说这篇文章发表后不会被广泛引用了？既然发表这篇文章不能体高杂志的引用引子，那我编辑何必帮你呢？ 19）结论和摘要雷同。 20）杂志缩写错了，文章里有很多拼写和格式错误。英语不好。 希望读了以上这些东西对大家有针对性地修改文章有益！ 作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊）， 但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意， 就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名信息等就都删除了， 以免造成不必要的麻烦！ 希望朋友们多评价，其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家！ 国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志， 被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！ 个人认为文章还是有一些创新的， 所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！ 登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人， 详细看了下打的分数，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），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！ 两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！ （括号斜体内容为我注解） 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 for administrative 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 been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject 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 for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的） - it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion), - it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods 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). （很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊） 2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors - state that XXXXX - state that XXXX - This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size? （很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的） 3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write "XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates!!! （研究了什么？？？） 4.英语写作要提高 （这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊） Reviewer 5 Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A Comments to Editor: Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof. Name:（国人） Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx Dear editor: Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used. The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript: （看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理） 1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement. （这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！ 朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈）） 2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 ?C. （作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊） 3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。 However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particle size? （作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累） 4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure? （虫子们自己注意） 5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了） 花了一个多小时整理出来， 虽然我很忙，但还是希望其他朋友能多注意，不要被类似的问题三番五次出现而遭毙稿！ 最后恭祝大家多发文章，多多评价本文！谢谢！ 读稿和审稿的方法学 Zhenmafudan @ 2008-08-24 00:33 我第一次成为国际刊物独立审稿人是在2003年。五年多来为二十多个杂志审了近百篇文章。刚开始当审稿人的时候，学习了The ACS Style Guide第二版，里面有大量著名化学专家关于如何审稿的介绍性文章（The ACS Style Guide第二版已经把这些内容去掉了）。审稿的好处在于锻炼自己critical thinking的能力。有了这种能力，自己就能用这种critical的眼光审视自己的稿件，这样自己投文章就更有把握。同时，稿子审得越多，编辑找自己越勤快，这说明自己的劳动和学术判断被承认，这样自己以后投稿就更加有credit了。 Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management, p. 182. As your relationships with journal editors develop, you may be asked to review manuscripts submitted by other scientists. Take the task seriously. Do the reviews throughly and promptly. If you don't have time or don't think you have the right expertise, let the editors know right away. They will not hold this against you. A late or weak review, however, could hurt your reputation with the editors. The benefits of serving as a reviewer are potentially great. Not only will you learn about others' research, you will improve your own critical skills and confirm your standing as a knowledgeable scientist in the eyes of the editors. You own future papers will be taken more seriously if you do good reviews. 给中国杂志投稿和给外国杂志投稿不大一样。有的催化文章投中国化学不中，投Journal of Molecular Catalysis A却能中。而有的美国化学会志两页快报投中国化学倒未必会中，因为审稿人看不懂。外国的催化杂志审稿偏重于总体印象，有时候审稿人对实验提不出意见，就说这篇文章没有趣、没有用，还没有达到该杂志的水平，建议投其它差的杂志。越是出名的审稿人，审起稿子越是高屋建瓴，评价该文章在该课题中的地位和意义，而很少死扣字句的错误。 下面我从一些摘录一下审稿人看什么。了解这些，即可以帮助自己成为合格的审稿人，又能促使写作者从审稿人角度挑剔的审视自己的文章，进行修改。 Communicating Science: A Practical Guide, Springer, p. 102. Before starting on your task, jot down your answers to a list of questions such as: 1) Is this the appropriate journal for publication? If not, can I suggest a better medium? 2) Is this paper significant/important? Why? Why not? 3) Is it comprehensive with respect to its subject matter? 4) Are there omissions? 5) Are there mistakes? Inaccuracies? 6) Is the work reproducible from the evidence provided? 7) Do some of the authors' assertations need to be qualified? 8) Does the paper conform to the high standards as previous contributions from the same group? 9) Is the writing clear and fluid? Can it be improved? How? 10) Are there mispellings? Typos? 11) Is the bibliography (reference) adequant? 12) Is the artwork necessary and complelling? 13) Is the title adequate? 14) Should the abstract be rewritten? 15) Can I suggest cuts in the manuscript? 16) How can I sum up in a sentence or two my overall assessment? The ACS Style Guide (Third Edition), p. 74. The entire manuscript should be read carefully and critically. Most reviewers read a manuscript more than once. Manuscripts should be rated on technical quality, significance of the work, importance to the research field, and adequacy of expression. Many reviewers divide their reviews into general comments and specific, detailed comments. In the general section, reviewers draw attention to both the strong and weak points of the manuscript, the concepts, the objectives, and the methods. Like an author writing a manuscript, reviewers should write reviews in a comprehensive but concise manner, addressing the questions presented below: Suggested Topics for A Peer Review 1) Are the methods (experimental section) adequately described and referenced? 2) Are there any unsupported conclusions? 3) Is there anything that is confusing or ambiguous? 4) Do figures and tables appropriately illustrate the data? 5) Is the introduction clear and informative? 6) Is either the introduction or discussion longer than necessary, and do they make sense in relation to the subject and the data? 7) Although the discussion is the appropriate place for speculation, is it excessive? 8) Are the appropriate references cited? Are the references accurate? 9) Is English usage and grammar adequate? 10) Is the length of the manuscript unwarranted? Suggestions on how a manuscript can be shortened are appreciated by editors. 11) Is the use of color warrented? Printing color is a significant expense for the publisher. Essential Skills for Science and Technology, Oxford University Press, p. 161. Critical analysis 1) Is the article appropriate for its target audience? 2) Does the article build on prior research? 3) Does the article reflect a good knowledge or previous literature in the field? 4) Does the authors identify the problem or issue clearly and explain its relevance? 5) Did the authors choose the best research method and approach? Was it executed properly? 6) Were the methodology, findings, and reasons for their conclusions logically and clearly explained? 7) Do the authors make appropriate comparisons to similar events, cases, or occurances? 8) Are the ideas really new or do the authors merely repackage old ideas with new names? 9) Were there adequate and appropriate examples and illustrations? 10) Do the authors discuss everything they promise in the abstract, introduction, and outline? 11) Does the article make a contribution to its field? If not, in what way should it have made a contribution and why didn't it? 12) What are the article's strengths and weaknesses? 13) What are its limitations and boundaries? 14) Did it discuss all the important aspects in its domain thoroughly? 15) Overall, how complete and thorough a job did the authors do? Did they justify their conclusions adequately? Did they provide enough background information to make their work comprehensible? 16) How confident are you in the article's results? Is it convincing? 以上我摘录了审稿人的思考问题。应该说上述问题比较“文”，比如文章的布局和思路等。审稿人更多问“理”的问题，如具体实验细节不清楚等。写审稿意见首先要写本文用什么方法研究了什么？新颖性和重要性如何？强项和弱项是什么？最大的问题是什么？推荐不推荐发表？在论述主要问题、主要矛盾以后，给出其它一条一条的小的修改意见。如果审稿人的审稿意见只有一句“很好，值得发表”，或者“不好，应该退稿”，而不讲出具体理由，那么这样的审稿意见可信性就降低了，给编辑的印象也不好，说明审稿人没有仔细看。好的审稿意见不但给出总体评价，而且给出具体修改意见，指出第几页第几行。这说明审稿人仔细地看了文章。 **** Hidden Message *****