关键词不能为空

当前您在: 主页 > 英语 >

黄堇评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语

作者:高考题库网
来源:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao
2021-01-22 00:42
tags:

交-

2021年1月22日发(作者:送行)
英文审稿拒绝评语


【篇一:英文论文审稿意见汇总】


英文论文审稿意见汇总


以下
12
点无轻重主次之分。 每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审
稿人意见构成。

1
、目标和结果不清晰。

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,

a

b
的证明,
verifica tion:

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

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。



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
(

…)


(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。



2
:英文审稿意见
(
略有删节
)

reviewer: 1

there are many things wrong with this paper.

the english is very bad. although the meaning is by and large
clear, not too many sentences are correct.

the literature review is poor. the paper is riddled with
assertions and claims that should be supported by references.

the paper reads as an advertisement for xxx. it is not clear that
the author is independent of xxx.

the aa model of xxx is not as innovative as the author claims.
there are now many xx that follow this model (american
geophysical union, for example), and the author should survey
these model to see which one first introduced the elements of
the xxx model.


the model is also not as successful as the author claims. ……

overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can
only mean that i reject that the paper be rejected.

reviewer: 2

the are two major problems with this paper:

(1) it is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now
know as the two-sided market literature including that directly
related to … (e.g. braunstein, jasis 1977; economides
katsanakas, mgt. sci., 2006; mccabe snyder, b.e. j econ
analysis, 2007).

(2) the writing quality is not up to the standard of a us
scholarly journal. reviewer: 3

1. the author should accentuate his contributions in this
manuscript.


2. it lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s
discoveries.

3. description style material like this manuscript requires
structured tables figures for better presentations.

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

交-


交-


交-


交-


交-


交-


交-


交-



本文更新与2021-01-22 00:42,由作者提供,不代表本网站立场,转载请注明出处:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/547032.html

评语大全之英文审稿拒绝评语的相关文章