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 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 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）：
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 pro
blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.
◆The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str
ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i
n English or whose native language is English.
◆Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte
r 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 be
en edited because the subject is interesting.
◆There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm
itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat
erials.
◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.
老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见
Ms. Ref. No.: ******
Title: ******
Materials Science and Engineering
Dear Dr. ******,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.
Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits:
1) the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;
2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ;
Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal
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。
Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by two reviewers, and their comments are as follows:
The Comments by the First Reviewer
Editor: Michael A. Duncan
Reviewer: 68
Manuscript Number: jp067440i
Manuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types
Corresponding Author: Yu
Recommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.
Additional Comments: In the present work the authors introduce a new energy-based aromaticity measure. Referred as restricted geometry optimization, the extra stabilization energy (ESE) is calculated by means of an energy scheme in which the different double bonds are localized. This methodology is applied to different sets of aromatic systems, and the results are compared to previous already existing schemes. This procedure seems to work better than previous ones, however it must be underlined that with a much greater complexity. It avoids having to choose a reference structure, and it is worth noticing that benzene appears to be the most aromatic system. Thus the method presented might mean a new contribution to the different aromacity criteria, however before acceptance for publication I would recommend important changes to be taken into account in the manuscript.
The new method used is not presented in a comprehensible way. In the second paragraph of the Introduction the authors should already describe it, and not first presenting the results for benzene and not going into the method till the second section. The formulas used must be described precisely as well. So I would recommend that before acceptance the manuscript should be rewritten in order to make it more comprehensible not only to physical chemists but also to the experimental chemical community, and at the same time to improve the English used. Other minor points are:
- First line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in organic chemistry, but most of organic compounds are not aromatic.- Introduction, line 4: notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, however geometry-based (HOMA), magnetic-based (NICS) and electronic-based (SCI, PDI) methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.
- Section 3.1, last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2? This should be pointed out in the manuscript.
- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8.
Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006
*****************************************
The Comments by the Second Reviewer
Editor: Michael A. Duncan
Reviewer: 67
Manuscript Number: jp067440i
Manuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization
Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types
Corresponding Author: Yu
Recommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.
Additional Comments:
Comments on the manuscript "Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types" by Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng Bao
Authors propose a restricted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity. The approach is interesting and has certain merits. My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand, mainly because of poor English. A substantial revision in this respect would be beneficiary.
各位：
新的恶战开始了。投往JASA的文章没有被拒，但被批得很凶。尽管如此，审稿人和编辑还是给了我们一个修改和再被审的机会。我们应当珍惜这个机会，不急不火。我们首
先要有个修改的指导思想。大家先看看审稿意见吧。
-----邮件原件-----
Manuscript #07-04147:
Editor's Comments:
This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayed
above. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers,
each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. The
main points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent across
the reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and the
reviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introduction
needs to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you propose
to answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale for selecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focus on how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The results section is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfy the reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhaps consolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readers would take your word that these were nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other work where they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first results as late as page 17 of a manuscript.
Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by the
reviewers about the design. The most notable (but not the only problem) is
that there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be compared
at nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that at
least floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely to
significantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listeners
are tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance was
extremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-masker
ratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the older
listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvaged
if you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratio
for the older listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it.
I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that it
precludes publication of t!
he
older versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscript
and the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impression comparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensation
levels at which the older and younger groups listened (if the target was
fixed at 56 dBA).
The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in your lab, and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of data
were different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is not varying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviews point out, your conditions present brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target, may change the energetic masking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the same time. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performance substantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very different
than those when the target is at v!
ery
low sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedence effect, particularly the perception of "echoes" at the longer delays. Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breaking
apart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and Parks (1961). To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions. However, it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.
I think there are several options for you to consider: (1) If you think it
is very important to publish all the data you have right now, you could withdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal. (2) You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision that
includes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity of
the older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you, I don't think this is a promising alternative. (3) You could collect more data on
older listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better.
With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such data
were collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, it
could be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision would
be sent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that a manuscript even with these new data would be judged favorably by the reviewers. (4) You
could drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit a
much shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on the
noise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking from
the data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale for
what your specific question is about release from masking, why your
conditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worry
about how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. (5) You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider a
more straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask with
older listeners.
Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternatives
described will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whatever
you decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully as
they have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improving
the presentation.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Freyman
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer #1 Evaluations:
Reviewer #1 (Good Scientific Quality):
No. See attached
Reviewer #1 (Appropriate Journal):
Yes
Reviewer #1 (Satisfactory English/References):
No.
Reviewer #1 (Tables/Figures Adequate):
No.
Reviewer #1 (Concise):
No.
Reviewer #1 (Appropriate Title and Abstract):
No, because the term "interval-target interval" in the title required
further explanation.
MS#: 07-04147
Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informational
masking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults."
This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger and
older listeners, as a function of inter-target interval (ITI) in two masker
conditions (speech masking and noise masker). The same target speech was presented from two different locations simultaneously in two different
maskers, one from each location (L or R). Results show that release from
informational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners when
the ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.
General comments:
1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:
• The general impression is that the introduction section is
unnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained.
• The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping from
place to place. For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberation
and the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-page
to talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.
• In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of the
study and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentioned
that "the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech from
speech masking or noise masking." However, they did not explain how and why manipulating ITI can address their questions, questions that were not clearly stated anywhere in the paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation was given regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results in
different conditions can answer the questions under investigation.
2. Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate and precise:
• Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.
• At the beginning of the result section for both the younger and
older groups, the authors should clearly present the number of factors included in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor and which ones were within-subject factors. Main effects and interaction (3-way
and 2-way) should also be reported clearly.
• Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however, no pvalue was reported.
• The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either
"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p=0.084 is "marginally significant."
• When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference between
the 64 ms ITI and other ITI values? For example, in the statement "...the release
amount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition,...", do you mean "31.9 percentage points"?
3. Baseline condition is questionable:
• The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking (on p.19) as
"...the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percent difference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identification at the ITI of 64 ms (the longest ITI in this study)."
• It took me a while to understand what this means, and finally came up with the interpretation (if my interpretation is correct) of the data for the authors. It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms, the perceived spatial location
is between the two maskers (spatial separation). But when the ITI was 32
and/or 64 ms, listeners heard two images (one from each side) and there was no spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on either side. Therefore, according to the authors, the release from masking is the performance difference between the ITI conditions when listeners heard only one image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditions where two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have a problem with the baseline condition (64 ms ITI in which two images were
perceived). If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delay
(echo) between the two targets? If so, the poor performance in the 64 ms
condition can be partially due to the confusion/disruption induced by the
echo in noise conditions in addition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and the masker.
4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:
• The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study and
claimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However, reading
the fine details of their hearing thresholds (< 45 dB HL between 125 and 4k
Hz), it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normal
limits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hz
and mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz (see Fig. 1) in these
subjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results in
relation to the threshold differences between the two groups.
• The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It is
necessary to provide individual threshold data (at least for the older
group) in a table format.
5. Language problem:
• I understand that English is not the authors' native language. It
is recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading the
manuscript before submission.
6. Tables and Figures:
• Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presented
in Fig. 7
• The authors should provide legends in the figures.
• The authors should provide error bars in the graphs in Fig 1.
• It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2
• The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis in
Fig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data.
• Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in the
text.
Specific comments (this is by no means a complete list):
p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen (1929) is not necessary.
p.4 first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list of
references in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that are
most relevant and representative.
p.4 last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a target speech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the target speech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible, please rewrite.
p.5 first line, first par. "Masking (particularly information masking) of
target speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues (perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc) to
facilitate his/her selective attention to the target
speech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence.
p.5 line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevant information..., therefore may cause more speech-recognition difficulties" This sentence is coming out of the blue without further explanation.
p. 8-10. Please explain the terms "inter-loudspeaker interval",
"inter-masker interval", "inter-target interval" before using them.
p.11 line 11 "Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantly influenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effect
of changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible.
p.11 line 2 "The 36 young university students all had normal and balanced...." Change "balance" to "symmetrical."
p. 12 line 8 "Direct English translations of the sentences are similar but
not identical to the English nonsense sentences that were developed by Helfer (1997) and also used in studies by Freyman et al. (1999, 2001, 2004) and Li et al. (2004)." I thought the sentences were created by the authors. So, are they a direct translation from the English version or created by the authors?
p.13 last par "For the two-source target presentation,...." This came out of the blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.
p.15 line 8 "During a session, the target-speech sounds were presented at a level such that each loudspeaker, playing alone, would produce a sound pressure of 56 dBA." Is this the rms level of speech? The level at 56 dBA seems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listeners
given that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation level?
p.15 last line "There were 36 ((17+1)x2) testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32 ((15+1)x2) testing conditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscript?
p.16 line 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experiments under the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from? Front? Right? Or left?
p.17-27. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point #2.
p.23 line 12-13 "A 2 (masker type) by 15 (ITI) within-subject ANOVA confirms that the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the
main effects.
p.29 line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a
"self-masking" effect in noise?
p.30 last par first line "Specifically, when the SNR was -4 dB, changing the ITI (absolute value) from 64 to 0 ms led to only a small improvement in target-speech intelligibility, and the improvement was similar between the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition." The amount of release from masking in the speech masker condition at -4 dB SNR may be limited by the ceiling effect.
p.31 line 5 "In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improved speech recognition under both the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition..."
It is hard to tell if there is a significant difference among the ITI
conditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect.
p.31 line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in older adults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is (16 ms or 32 ms), cues induced by the integration
of leading and lagging target signals were weaker and/or not be well used in older participants." First, the author should take into account the hearing loss in the older group. Second, this conclusion seems somewhat contradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived image(s) of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for one
younger subject perceived two
separate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image.
p.32 2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on ear channel acoustics came out of nowhere.
Reviewer #2 Evaluations:
Reviewer #2 (Good Scientific Quality):
Generally yes - see general remarks below.
Reviewer #2 (Appropriate Journal):
Yes
Reviewer #2 (Satisfactory English/References):
Clarity and conciseness could be improved - see general remarks.
The referencing is occasionally excessive, e.g. the 17 references provided
to back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, or
p28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of these long lists of citations (see JASA guidelines).
The English is satisfactory, with lots of minor comments (see 'detailed comments' below)
Reviewer #2 (Tables/Figures Adequate):
The figures would benefit from being redrawn using appropriate
graph-plotting software. In their current form, they are quite pixelated.
The figures would benefit from a legend, when there are several symbols used on the same graphs.
Figure 2 and Figure 3's x-axes should be suitably non-linear, because the points plotted for ITIs between -10 and 10 ms are illegible.
Figure 3 is perhaps largely repeats information that is apparent in Figure
2. Also, the top panel is perhaps misleading, as the difference between the
two conditions could be explained to some degree by a ceiling effect. The
use of symmetry in Figure 3 should be applied to Figure 2, since we had no reason to expect left-right effects.
Tables 1 and 2 should be omitted, since all their information is provided in
a Figure.
Reviewer #2 (Concise):
There seem to be a large number of ANOVAs described in great detail. Perhaps these could be reduced to more essential statistics, or even omitted when
the differences are clear from the figures (see 'general remarks' below). Reviewer #2 (Appropriate Title and Abstract):
In the title, the term 'inter-target interval' could refer to many things,
and it is not immediately obvious from the title that the paper has anything
to do with the precedence effect.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks):
The authors have presented uncorrelated speech or noise maskers from two speakers, and presented the target speech from the same two speakers
non-simultaneously, varying the time-interval (the inter-target interval, or
ITI) between the two presentations.
(1) Young listeners' speech-recognition: Novel differences were mentioned between the design of your experiment and seemingly similar experiments (Rakerd et al. 2006; Brungart et al. 2005). The discussion section would benefit from a comparison of the results from these experiments. There should be some mention of the general effect of ITI on speech-recognition, and some discussion about its cause and/or implications.
(2) Age-related differences in speech-recognition: I was not entirely convinced that the differences could not be adequately explained by a combination of elderly listeners' increased susceptibility to energetic masking, elderly listeners' reduced ability to listen in the dips, and
floor/ceiling effects. These simple explanations should receive more emphasis. Once they have been ruled out, more emphasis should be given to the apparent connection between the subjective results and the
speech-recognition results (around 32 ms ITI). There should be more discussion about the meaning and importance of this interesting connection, and its implications for elderly listeners, perhaps mentioning auditory
scene analysis.
It's unfortunate that the elderly listeners were only tested for SNRs at
which they had such poor speech recognition.
(3) Age-related differences in subjective perception: Elderly listeners had reduced echo-thresholds for speech compared to young listeners. This seems to be a novel result. If this section is to be included, further discussion
of relevant literature should be included, and further description of the method used to get these subjective responses. Perhaps this aspect could be published separately as a letter.
Age-related differences were described as 'temporal decline'. If this term
is to be used, it should perhaps be defined more carefully. Also, does it
refer to the age-related differences in dip-listening, age-related
differences in subjective perception, the interaction of subjective
perception and speech-recognition, or some combination of these? If it is some combination, there should be further argument that the phenomena are related, perhaps incorporating other temporal-decline results from the literature.
Overall, there is too much statistics and not enough interpretation of what
the results mean. A major re-write is required, focusing on the important results in the Results section, and interpreting them in the Discussion section.
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；
英语论文评语
英语论文评语 篇一：英语本科论文指导教师评语英语本科毕业论文评语 对毕业论文（设计）完成情况及质量、工作能力及态度、思想表 现、论文学术水平等进行总体评价孙悟空： 孙悟空同学能按照相关论文写作要求，认真地展开工作并作按时 完成毕业论文任务，质量一般。论文的选题有一定研究价值，结构基本合理，各部分基本符合英语论文的写作要求。为了写好这篇论文，作者作了一定研究，但对原著的内容是不够熟悉。语言错误表达不够简洁，说理欠充分，观点具有一定独创性，语料欠充实，论证力度不够，未能沉入剖析主题。总体而言，基本达到毕业论文要求。 任我行： 学术界对双关语与歧义的研究虽然较多，但是把两者联系在一起 的研究较少，故该论文选题具有一定的研究意义，作者在吸收学术界研究成果的基础上，提出自己的见解，有说服力。论述观点正确，语料比较充实，思路清晰、叙述层次分明，有较强的逻辑性。语言基本功较好，文字通顺、流畅。行文符合学术规范。如 “4. Application of Ambiguity in Puns从更深层次剖析双关语与歧义在用法上的关系，则能彰显一定的学术水平。总体而言，这是 一篇较好的毕业论文。
东方不败东方不败同学的论文探讨农村留守初中生课后英语词汇学习存在问题，并提出了相应的解决策略。符合具有一定的现实意义，论文结构合理，思路清晰，层次清晰，语句通顺。观点表达准确。能在论证过程中能有效的将专业原理与要研究的主题结合起来。作者对于论文内容有一定的了解和熟悉。但文章不足之处在于研究的效度有待提高，总体上达到毕业论文要求。 左冷禅 该文分析了地区院校英语专业免费师范生在教育实习中存在的问题，并提出了解决策略。选题符合英语专业培养培养目标与专业特色，具有较强的针对性和现实意义。文章结构安排合理，层次清晰，写作时参考的相关文献资料与主题联系紧密，而且参考的资料较新，在写作过程中作者能较好地运用专业基本知识原来分析问题，在论证过程中，主要用理论论证和事实论证。但在数据分析时，在于未能透过现象揭示本质，论证还不够深刻充分，创新点不够。总体上符合毕业论文要求。 1 篇二：毕业论文指导教师评语参考范例 毕业论文指导教师和评阅教师的论文评语参考范例 优秀（90分以上）论文评语参考范例 论文选题有新意，有实际应用价值，论文有自己独到的观点，能够反映出学生的创造性劳动，结构安排合理，论证充分、透彻，有足够的理论和实例支撑，英语语言表达顺畅、得体，没有语法错误，论文格式符合规范
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
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
最新投稿英文文章审稿的一些术语
EIC－Editor in Chief 主编, 对稿件有最终决定权。 ADM- (可能是)Administrator 协助主编日常工作的。相当于编辑部的执行编辑（Managing Editor），你会发现编辑部给你的信大都是他写给你的。他是编辑部里和你最接近的人，给你分配稿件号（Edit the manuscript ID number），修改各种投稿状态和日期（Edit the submission date）。 AE－Associated Editor 副编辑（文章发表后在首页第一栏下方的contributing editor）。此人非常重要，他会在审稿人意见的基础上对文章作个综合评价后，给主编一个recommendation。一般主编都会按照AE的意见写最终的decision letter。 Reviewer--审稿人。（Article要求两个审稿人＋AE，总共三个人审。 Article submitted后 1、awaiting admin. procession一般3－4天后就会安排主编。 2、awaiting reviewer assignment 等待指定审稿人。主编在选择审稿人，等待审稿人回复是否同意审稿。一般在一周以内。看审稿人回复速度。 3、awaiting reviewer scores 等待审稿人审稿意见。一般要求审稿人三周内给审稿意见。但是审稿人觉得时间时间不够，可以写信给主编要求延长审稿期限。这个时间长短要取决于审稿人是否有空看你的文章，还要看他是否守时。一般三周左右。 4、awaiting AE assignment 等待AE的指派。编辑部在选择/联系AE。一般1－3天左右。 5。awaiting AE recommendation 等待AE的推荐。一般要求AE三周内给结果。 6。awaiting EIC decision －激动人心的时刻。等待主编的决定。一般3－4天。 decision 分为五挡 1－Accept 2－accept after minor revision(without re-review不需要再送审) 3－reconsideration after major revision.(要再送审，即要再经过审稿流程3－6) 4－reject and resubmit (论文现在状态不能接受，但可以修改后重新再投。要重新经过审稿流程1－6) 5－reject （没希望了，改投把)
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