英文审稿意见汇总

英文期刊审稿意见模板

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 nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen. 12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：

英文论文审稿意见英文版

英文论文审稿意见汇总 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one 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 me thods used in the study. . Furthermore, an expla natio n of why the authors did these various experime nts should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的ratio nale: Also, there are few expla nati ons of the rati on ale for the study desig n. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The con clusi ons are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

SCI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。 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 me thods 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. ：题问度谨严、10． 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

英文审稿意见

在比较高级别的会议、期刊等，评审系统中包括给编辑的和给作者的评审意见。本文就这两部分评审以及进行汇总 第一部分：给作者的审稿意见 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 me thods 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

英文论文审稿意见范文

This paper addresses an important and interesting problem -automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo. The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts. Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts. The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo. Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved: (1) The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paper in Section 1. (2) In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain a value very close to on GACS if all its accounts have entirely copied their own texts, images or contact information”. However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not considered when computing GACS. (3) In Algorithm 1 on Pg. 17, it seems that “t=t+1” should be added after line 6. (4) I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in Section 9. (5) There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.

英文论文投稿及修改流程

SCI投稿过程总结、投稿状态解析、拒稿后处理对策及接受后期相关问答综合荟萃目录（重点是一、二、四、五、六）： （一）投稿前准备工作和需要注意的事项、投稿过程相关经验总结 （二）SCI期刊投稿各种状态详解及实例综合（学习各种投稿状态+投稿经历总结） （三）问答综合篇（是否催稿、如何撤稿、一稿两投及学术不端相关内容等） （四）如何处理审稿意见（回复意见、补实验、润色、重整数据、作图及调整、申辩及其他） （五）Reject 或者Reject and resubmit后的对策和处理 （六）稿件接受后期的相关问题（作者信息、地址版权、单行本、彩图费、版面费、如何汇款、清样相关等） （七）进阶篇（如何选投SCI杂志、各专业方向期刊选择、SCI写作经验） （一）投稿前准备工作和需要注意的事项、投稿过程相关经验总结 投稿前准备工作和需要注意的事项： 总结提示语： 1)第一作者和通信作者的区别： 通信作者（Corresponding author)通常是实际统筹处理投稿和承担答复审稿意见等工作的主导者，也常是稿件所涉及研究工作的负责人。 通信作者的姓名多位列于论文作者名单的最后（使用符号来标识说明是Corresponding author)，但其贡献不亚于论文的第一作者。 通讯作者往往指课题的总负责人，负责与编辑部的一切通信联系和接受读者的咨询等。 文章的成果是属于通讯作者的，说明思路是通讯作者的，而不是第一作者。 第一作者仅代表是你做的，且是最主要的参与者！ 通信作者标注名称：Corresponding author，To whom correspondence should be addressed,或The person to whom inquiries regarding the paper should be addressed 若两个以上的作者在地位上是相同的，可以采取“共同第一作者”（joint first author)的署名方式，并说明These authors contributed equally to the work。 2)作者地址的标署： 尽可能地给出详细通讯地址，邮政编码。有二位或多位作者，则每一不同的地址应按之中出现的先后顺序列出，并以相应上标符号的形式列出与相应作者的关系。 如果第一作者不是通讯作者，作者应该按期刊的相关规定表达，并提前告诉编辑。期刊大部分以星号（*）、脚注或者致谢形式标注通讯联系人。 3)挑选审稿人的几个途径： 很多SCI杂志都需要作者自己提出该篇论文的和您研究领域相关的审稿人，比较常见的是三名左右，也有的杂志要求5-8人。介绍几个方法： ①利用SCI、SSCI、A&HCI、ISTP检索和您研究相关的科学家； ②文章中的参考文献； ③相关期刊编委或学术会议的主席、委员； ④以前发表的类似文章的审稿人； ⑤询问比较熟识的一些专业人士；

一些英文审稿意见的模板

一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】 来源：Elaine 王倩的日志 最近导师让我帮忙审了两篇英文文章，觉得写的都不怎么样，顿时觉得自己的也不太差吧嘿嘿。但是怎么写评审还是有经验需要学习，自己也不能写的太不专业。不过我的意见也不过是给老师写意见的一个参考，具体能不能过我就毋须多言了。 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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

英文论文审稿常用套话

编辑一般会发给审稿人一个提纲，类似于这样的： 文章编号 题目 对文章一个概括性的描述及审稿人自己的决定（接受，拒，大修，小修等） 审稿意见： 1、XX 2、XX 3、XX ... 审稿意见的一些套话 1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below. 2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below. 3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as – 4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added. 5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of –because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - . 6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory. 7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker. 8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined. 9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays. 10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

英文论文审稿意见汇总

英文论文审稿意见汇总 2011-04-24 19:24 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 m anus cript needs careful editing by s om eone with expertise in technical Englis h editing paying particular attention to Englis h gramm ar, spelling, and s entence s tructure s o that the goals and results of the s tudy 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 s tatis tical me thods us ed in the s tudy. ◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experim ents s hould be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Als o, there are few explanations of the rationale for the s tudy des ign. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclus ions are overs tated. For exam ple, the s tudy did not s how if the s ide effects from initial copper burs t can be avoid with the polym er form ulation. 5、对hypothes is的清晰界定： A h ypothesis needs to be pres ented。 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 volum e ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Tr y to s et the problem dis c uss ed in this paper in m ore 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 propos ed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experim ental com paris on of the algorithm with previous ly known work, s o it is imposs ible to judge whether the algorithm is an im provem ent on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is eas ier than the prim itive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆In addition, the lis t of refere nces is not in our s tyle. It is close but not com pletely correct. I have at tached a pdf file with "Ins tructions for Authors" which shows exam ples.

一些英文审稿意见及回复的

一些英文审稿意见的模板 好东西 原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博 一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。 第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major 而不是minor 本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了majorrevision ，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue 的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue 。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A, B, C, D做比较，补充大量 实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue 。在Argue 的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对,他提出的方法也很好,但本文的重点是blablabla ,跟他说的不是一回 事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重,象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion ,这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子,编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四,聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见,如果是minor ,意见只有寥寥数行,那当然会情 不自禁的一蹴而就,一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候,问题在于要不要马上投回去了？ 我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major ，建议至少放一

论文评阅人评语

论文评阅人评语 篇一：毕业论文评阅人评语模板 毕业论文评阅人评语模板 vip6501 发表于2007-3-18 23:28:00 优： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，能够达到综合训练目标，题目有较高难度，工作量大。选题具有较高的学术研究（参考）价值（较大的实践指导意义）。 该生查阅文献资料能力强，能全面收集关于。。。。。的资料，写作过程中能综合运用。。。。知识，全面分析。。。。问题，综合运用知识能力强。 文章篇幅完全符合学院规定，内容完整，层次结构安排科学，主要观点突出，逻辑关系清楚，有一定的个人见解。 文题完全相符，论点突出，论述紧扣主题。 语言表达流畅，格式完全符合规范要求；参考了丰富的文献资料，其时效性较强；没有抄袭现象。 良： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，能够达到综合训练目标，题目有难度，工作量较大。选题具有学术研究（参考）价值（实践指导意义）。

该生查阅文献资料能力较强，能较为全面收集关于。。。。。的资料，写作过程中能综合运用。。。。知识，全面分析。。。。问题，综合运用知识能力较强。文章篇幅完全符合学院规定，内容较为完整，层次结构安排科学，主要观点突出，逻辑关系清楚，但缺乏个人见解。 文题相符，论点突出，论述紧扣主题。 语言表达流畅，格式完全符合规范要求；参考了较为丰富的文献资料，其时效性较强；未发现抄袭现象。 中： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，能够达到综合训练目标，题目有一定难度，工作量一般。选题具有学术研究（参考）价值（实践指导意义）。 该生查阅文献资料能力一般，能收集关于。。。。。的资料，写作过程中基本能综合运用。。。。知识，全面分析。。。。问题，综合运用知识能力一般。文章篇幅完全符合学院规定，内容基本完整，层次结构安排一般，主要观点集中邮一定的逻辑性，但缺乏个人见解。 文题基本相符，论点比较突出，论述能较好地服务于论点。 语言表达一般，格式完全符合规范要求；参考了一定的文献资料，其时效性一般；未见明显抄袭现象。 及格： 论文选题符合专业培养目标，基本能够达到综合训练目标，题目

审稿专家总结的英文论文常见问题-模板

审稿专家总结的英文论文常见问题 英语不是我们的母语,用英语写作论文当然就会出现一些问题。大多数人还不具有用英语思考的能力。在这种情况下,比较好的做法是先写中文稿再译成英语,这样至少能避免直接写英文稿时容易出现的语意不连贯的问题。英文稿中最容易出现的用词问题是: ⑴ 按汉语硬译,形成所谓的“中式英语”。虽然不大会看到“good good study, day day up”这类“洋泾浜”,硬译的情况还是常见的。有一篇论文把“车载的”译为“tank-load”,其实,单词“vehicular”的意思就是车载。 ⑵ 介词的使用不当,用“of”、“to”较多,其它介词用得少。 ⑶ 代词“this”、“that”用得多,“it”用得少,而后者恰恰在科技文章中用得多。 ⑷句型单调,喜欢(或不得不)用“to be”构成句子。 ⑸ 不注意动词的词性。有些动词既可是及物动词也可是不及物动词,应该优先用不及物动词成句,而不要用及物动词的被动语态成句。 ⑹ 冠词“a”、“the”的使用不当,尤其容易忘记使用定冠词“the”。 ⑺ 不注意名词的单、复数,不注意主、谓语的人称配合。 ⑻ 论文中的用词应该比较正式,尽量少用一词多意的词,例如,口语中“get”有“获得”的意思,但论文中最好用“obtain”。 ⑼ 中西文化的差异常常使英文稿带有“中国特色”。有一篇稿件的作者很谦虚,在文章的结尾分析了所提出的方法的缺点,说在今后的研究中会逐步克服这些缺点。外国人就不会这么说,他们总是向前看,即使看到了缺点,也会说随着研究的深入,这种方法将会有更广阔的应用前景。有些文章的作者介绍中非要在“教授”后面加个“博士导师”,外国人就想象不出不是博士导师的教授是什么样子

Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)

Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)

Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX: Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again. 1.Title: XXX 2.Manuscript type: Article 3.Corresponding author: XXX 4.Full author names: XXX Sincerely, Prof. XXX School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, XX Key Laboratory of Controllable Chemistry Reaction & Material Chemical Engineering, XX University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China. 2015-03-05

SCI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。 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 me thods 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

评语大全之英文审稿评语

英文审稿评语 【篇一：如何写审稿意见】 求如何写论文审稿意见？ 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条： （1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。 （2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。 （3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。根据以上三点，你可以适当发挥。 其他回答 紫胶啊啊 2009-10-20 09:53:16 专家如何审阅稿件，即如何正确评价一篇论文，专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。 编辑如何选择审稿专家 对于每一份专业的科技期刊（或称学术期刊），其编辑部都会设立一个庞大的编辑委员会，编委会主任一般都由在本行业（或专业）有一定知 名度的专家、学者担任，编委会成员由一大批本行业（或专业）的知各专家、教授或学者担任，在编委中，一般都要考虑到各大专院校相关专 业、相关科研院所及地域间的名额平衡问题，期刊主办单位和北京地区的名额相应会多一些，而一些省市的名额可能只有一个，有些经济和文 化相对落后的省区可能还没有编委。这种情况造成了一些编委天生地就只能是挂名或名誉的。有时一些编委几年都审不了一篇稿件，这种情况 是十分正常的。为什么呢？因为在编委会下，编辑部还会有一个审稿专家的名单，这个审稿专家名单是不公开的，这个审稿名单里的专家一般

都是处于年富力强、正在一线从事科研工作的专家学者。同时，有时编辑部还要根据具体情况聘请部分两院院士作为学术顾问，对一些对行业 有重大影响的稿件进行必要的审查。从而形成了编委不审稿、审稿专家不是编委的状况。编辑选择审稿专家的原则，首先，是专家的经历和学历，特别是专家的经历是最重要的。每年编辑部都要发表格给专家，让专家填写工作经历， 即专家系统数据库的刷新，通过“刷新”编辑会得到专家最新的研究动向和科学前沿，在编辑请专家审阅某一篇论文时，编辑就会“心中有数” 从而不会出现选择审稿专家时的“偏差”。当然高学历的专家也是编辑首选的目标。其次，是专家对审稿工作的认真负责态度。有些专家喜欢 做一些文字工作，而有些专家学者并不善于从事审稿工作。有些专家对待审稿工作競競业业，从标题到标点，从字词到结构，从正文到参考文 献等通篇都进行了修正，并做出全面而客观的评价意见，最后得出了采用与否的建议，这样的审稿专家从编辑的角度来说，是十分喜欢的。而 一些专家的审稿意见则是“不用”或“建议录用”几个字了事，对于不用的稿件，无论是编辑还是审稿专家，都应该明明白白地告诉作者不用 的理由，而简单的“不用”是无论如何也不能让作者理解的！如果审稿专家的长期这么简单的处理稿件，必将导致编辑对其的“淡化”。同时 对于由于繁忙而经常拖着不及时审阅的论文，编辑也会在以后的审稿安排中，少给这些“比较忙”的专家们审稿，有时可能就会在无声无息中 取消了这些专家的审稿资格。我接触过几位审稿专家，对论文的审稿意见竟多达三页纸（有时比作者的论文还长），还有一位教授不光给我写 了二张纸的审稿意见，还将国外一些最新的文献复印给我，让我转告给论文的作者。这种负责任的审稿专家是编辑工作的“开路先锋”，有了