怎样写英文论文review(我的笔记).doc

How to peer review?General ideas1. Dont share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others. The reviewer should maintain confidentiality.（对所评阅的文章必须保密）2. To provide an honest, critical assessment of the work.To analyze the strengths and weaknesses, provide suggestions for improvement, and clearly state what must be done to raise the level of enthusiasm for the work.（对文章的优缺点做出评论，并明确指出应该怎么修改才能提升现有的文章质量）3. The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial, constructive manner. A carefully worded review with appropriate suggestions for revision can be very helpful.（以建设性的、学术性的口吻对文章进行评价，并给出建设性的修改再投递的意见）4. Support your criticisms or praise with concrete reasons that are well laid out and logical.（给出的评价应该附加有支撑观点的具体原因）5. 评阅步骤：(1) Read the manuscript carefully from beginning to end before considering the review. Get a complete sense of the scope and novelty.(2) Move to analyzing the paper in detail, providing a summary statement of your findings and detailed comments.(3) Use clear reasoning to justify each criticism and highlight good points and weaker points.(4) If there are positive aspects of a poor paper, try to find some way of encouraging the author while still being clear on the reasons for rejection.（如果被拒绝的文章中有部分闪光点，可以鼓励作者。但是要坚持拒绝的观点）(5) A point-by-point critique is valuable. For each point, indicate how critical it is to your accepting the paper.（逐点详述你的评论，并针对没一点给出你所能接收的文章的评判标准）(6) Finally, give the clear answer as to your recommendation for publication. !do not give a rating.（在review的最后必须给出明确的关于接收与否的回答，不要以百分度的形式给出不确切的答复）How to peer review an article?1. Comment on large issues first（从整体上进行评价）(1) Main point clear and interesting?(2) Is it effectively organized?(3) Are ideas adequately developed?(4) Is evidence used properly?(5) Is the research question clear and well justified?(6) Is the technical approach logical and rigorous?(7) How strong is the inference for the important conclusion?（得出结论的过程是否牵强？）(8) Are the results clear and statistically rigorous?(9) Does the discussion flow logically from the introduction?(10) Is there a clear and relevant topic sentence for each paragraph?总的来说，主要是从全文的内容角度对文章的：结构组织性(well organized, good structure)、逻辑性(logical)、严谨性(rigorous)、论据的合理性(justified, reasonable)、说服力(convincing)等方面对文章进行总体评论。2. Go on to smaller issues later（对细节进行评价，包括每一段）(1) Awkward or confusing sentences(2) Style(3) Grammar(4) Word choice(5) Proofreading（校正）(6) Clarity and comprehensibility of content(7) Accuracy(8) Readabilityin terms of logic, sequencing and flow(9) Consistencyin the content language and use of key terms总的来说，从细节部分考虑的主要是语言角度：纯从英语语言的角度对文章细节进行评价，包括语法、词法、选词是否恰当、行文是否可读 (read-friendly)、是否native-like等。有的论文可以对文章的各部分进行分步细节性评论：introduction, material and method, result, discussion, conclusion.3. Comment on whether the introduction clearly announces the topic and suggests the approach that will be taken;4. Comment on whether ideas are clear and understandable5. Specify your own feelings about where youve stuck and why. How to revise to avoid this stuck.6. Try to describe what you see in the paper: what the main point and organization pattern you think in this paper.7. Identify whats missing and needs to be explained more fully. Also what can be cut.!YES or NO questions a review should include and elaborated in details!(Elaborate these answers on language use, linguistic features and wording)1. The article title is appropriate.2. The abstract accurately reflects the content. 3. The purpose or thesis of the article is stated clearly.4. The purported（声称的）significance of the article is explicitly stated. 5. The article adequately ties to the relevant literature.6. The research study methods are sound and appropriate.7. The literature review and research study methods are explained clearly.8. The primary thesis is argued persuasively.9. The writing is clear concise and interesting.10. All figures, tables, and photos are necessary and appropriate.11. The conclusions or summary are accurate and supported by the content.12. The article is of interest to many URISA members. Reviewer Recommendation:（最后给出的接收与否的结论）n Please indicate which of the following actions you recommend.n ( ) 1. Publish, no significant alterations suggested.n ( ) 2. Publish, but suggest changes to the article as specified in this review.n ( ) 3. Publish, but suggestions as specified in this review must be addressed by either making changes or explaining why changes would be inappropriaten ( ) Check here if altered article should be resubmitted to the reviewern ( ) 4. Reject, but encourage author to try a major revision and a second peer review n ( ) 5. Reject, do not encourage a rewrite Samples for peer reviewOn January 22, 2007, Conrad Mauclair and colleagues submitted a manuscript entitled “Quantifying the effect of humic matter on the suppression of mercury emissions from artificial soil surfaces” for consideration to the journal Applied Geochemistry. The manuscript was sent out by the editor to two peer reviewers, who were given one to two months to complete the review. The reviewers sent comments to the editor, and after considering the reviewers comments, the editor chose to accept the manuscript with revisions, and responded as such to the authors approximately five months after their initial submission. Excerpts from the letter the editor wrote to the authors detailing this decision are printed below.Editor返还给作者时的评论：总结出接收与否，并根据reviewer的意见提出editor自己的观点。关键词：issues to be addressed27 May 2007Dear Authors:I have received two reviews of your manuscript entitled “Quantifying the effect of humic matter on the suppression of mercury emissions from artificial soil surfaces” submitted for publication in Applied Geochemistry. In addition I have read your paper and have some additional comments that are below. All reviewers including myself agree the paper after revisions is acceptable for publication.I have attached both reviewers comments to this email. Both reviewers raise some important issues that need to be clearly addressed in your revised paper. I agree with their concerns and below have added a few others that need to be addressed.Sincerely,Editor for Special Issue of Applied GeochemistryAdditional detailed comments from the Editor:The mass balance needs to be considered as detailed by reviewer 2. My guess is your flow rate is producing an artificially high flux. The way to deal with this would be to use the actual concentration difference between the inlet and outlet instead of the flux to calculate the amount lost. Plot the difference between the outlet and inlet concentrations rather than flux.The reviewers comments were attached to the editors letter with the names of the reviewers removed. In the case of journal manuscripts accepted with revision, the authors have the opportunity to read and respond to the reviewers comments and make changes to the article in question. In the case of grant submissions, scientists read the reviewers comments and use these to strengthen their submission the next time they apply for a grant. For the article by Mauclair and colleagues, the reviewers had a number of recommendations for improving the article, as the excerpts provided below detail. Reviewer 1对论文的评价：将整个review融合为一个整体，先从整体上评论（包括文章的逻辑、结构以及对该领域的意义及其重要性），再深入到细节评论。Excerpts of comments from Reviewer 1:This research article reports a controlled laboratory experimental study to probe the role of humic matter in Hg emission from soils. The experiments appear to enjoy sound design and fine performance. The results are certainly very interesting and valuable; this study will stimulate more research to further the exploration.The “suppression of mercury emission” in the title is an interpretation of the experimental observations, rather than an unequivocal conclusion. It might be better to use a more conservative title like “Quantifying the Effect of Humic Matter on Mercury Emissions from Artificial Soil Surfaces”. Id think the reader might come up with some different interpretations other than “suppression”.Would additional experiments with controls of humic matter plus Hg(II) salt only (without any sand) offer any more information? Reviewer 2对文章的评价：也是先整体后局部细节。但是从总体上时采用罗列的形式从各个角度评价文章是否达到了接收的标准（包括组织性、逻辑性、可读性、重要性等）Excerpts of comments from Reviewer 2:In response to direct comments requested by the editor: Originality:This paper systematically tests the combined impact of humic matter content and light in synthetic soils. Very few studies have reported similar work. Importance:This works main conclusion is that organic matter content alters Hg emissions from soils. This conclusion is of significant interest to mercury biogeochemists and may promote related field-based research, and help in the interpretation of current data sets. Manner of presentation:The paper is short, clear and to the point. More discussion of possible mechanisms and more details on related field studies (where fluxes and organic matter have been correlated) could be added. Quality of figures and tables: I do not think that the authors have reached an optimal design for the graphical presentation of their data. Figure 1, 2 & 3 could be easily combined, which would help the reader to compare the results taken at different intervals for the same experiments. In fact, these graphs could even be transformed in time series line graphs (instead of histograms). I am not sure of the most attractive final design, but the present design can be improved. Serious flaws or can the paper be improved by condensation or deletion of information: I have not found any serious flaws. I can say that I am not totally at ease with a study that reports only results from synthetic soils. It would have been nice to complement this data with some real soils. But I think that such a systematic, laboratory study is useful and pertinent. Does the title and abstract correspond to the content of the manuscript: Yes Would you be willing to re-review this paper after submission with revisions: Not necessarySpecific comments regarding the manuscript: 1. Can the authors comment on the realism of their approach? What are the limits of using synthetic soils and mixtures of inorganic Hg + humic acids? The fact that they tried different kinds of humic matter is comforting, but I would have like to see more info on potential limitations. 2. Page 9. Please clarify the design for the long term monitoring section. For instance, were the lights on for 14 days in the light treatment”? Was this continuous flux sufficient to decrease the pool of Hg in the sample? The following back of the envelope calculations left me worried by the results presented here: 3. If we take an average flux of 2000 ng/m2/h for the light + sand treatment (see figures 1, 2 and 3), then we get over 14 days and 44 g lost by evasion, whereas only 25 g were added! 4. I suspect that the lamps were only ON during the readings, once every week, but this should be more obvious. More info on the impact of the flux on the mass balance of the samples should be added. If the lights were turned OFF between weekly readings, how long were they ON for the readings? 退后修改的整个来回过程Once comments are received regarding a manuscript, it is up to the authors to address those comments, or in cases where they disagree with a reviewers comment, provide an explanation as to why they have not addressed the comment. In the above case, the authors addressed the majority of the reviewers comments and sent a letter back to the editor on June 10, 2007 detailing the changes made to the article and discussing why some changes were not made: July 10,2007Dear Editors,Enclosed is our revised manuscript. We have addressed all of the comments returned to us in the reviews of our paper. In addition, at the suggestion of reviewer 1, we have conducted additional experiments with 100% humic acid and have added the results of this experiment to our paper to assure that we have adequately addressed the experimental design comments. A detailed list of all individual changes is included below.All of the listed authors have read the revisions and agree with their conclusions.Sincerely,The AuthorsDetailed list of manuscript revisionsResponses to comments raised by Reviewer 1: As directed, we have revised the title of the manuscript to “Quantifying the Effect of Humic Matter on the Emission of Mercury from Artificial Soil Surfaces.” The reviewer raises an interesting question regarding the use of Hg-humic controls (without sand), these controls were not examined at the time of our study. However, to satisfy this question we have since conducted additional experiments with a 100% humic sample using 1g humic and HgCl2 sample (no sand). The results from this sample were consistent with those presented for our 5% humic sample, confirming that the effect we saw was due to humics, and not the interaction of humics with the sand. We have added this data to the paper and to Figure 1.Responses to specific comments raised by Reviewer 2: We have condensed the presentation of data in the Figures as suggested so that only one pair of graphs is now used (new Figure 1) instead of the three pairs that were used in the previous version of the manuscript (former Figures 1, 2, and 3). We have also edited Figures 2 and 3 (formerly Figures 4 and 5) as recommended.1. We have better qualified the limitations of the artificial soil system in the discussion. 2. Regarding the manner in which samples were stored between measurements, we had detailed this in the version of the manuscript submitted for review, our Methods section states “All samples were stored in the dark at constant temperature (23C) between measurements and monitored in both dark and light for mercury flux at regular intervals.” We have tried to emphasize this statement in the results section of the rewritten manuscript and we have added a statement that all flux measurements were taken over a 1.5-2 hr sampling period. 3. The mass balance calculated by the reviewer overestimates Hg loss from the samples as he/she assumes that the samples were exposed to light continuously (see point #2 above). We conservatively estimate that the maximum Hg loss from the sample exhibiting the highest emission rate (sand-Hg only) was 30% of the mercury added. Humic-containing samples showed much lower Hg losses. 4. As the reviewer states, the samples were not under light continuously and this has been clarified as per the two points above.Responses to specific comments raised by the Editor: While turnover rate is a significant issue, our work represents the relative comparison of samples that were all measured at a constant turnover rate, thus the effect of chamber turnover rate on our conclusions is negated. A discussion of this has been added to the manuscript. In an effort to guide future research, we have added mention of more recent personal communication regarding chamber turnover rate, to our knowledge new data regarding turnover rate is not published. A suggestion was made to report the difference between chamber inlet and outlet Hg concentrations rather than fluxes. As described above, the mass balance of Hg in the samples is not problematic. Further, because all Co-Ci differences are multiplied by a constant turnover rate in the flux equation, this would simply have the effect of changing the magnitude of the numbers (and graph axes) reported, not the relative difference between numbers - which is the basis of all conclusions of the work. Also, because the majority of researchers report results as fluxes, we feel that reporting our results as concentration differences would make this work inaccessible to mercury researchers. Our methodology and flux measurements are all based on peer-reviewed, published literature (Lindberg et al., 2002) and follow standard protocols. We believe discussing the limitations of the method is therefore sufficient in this context. The comments from Reviewer 2 highlight the fact that peer review helps the scientific publishing system to assure that manuscripts meet certain minimal standards. Reviewer 2 commented on the originality of the submission, the perceived importance of the work in the field of science, the manner of presentation of the writing in the text, the quality of the figures and tables and data analysis in general, whether he/she found any serious flaws in the work, and specifically the appropriateness of the manuscript title and abstract since these are the parts of the paper that will be cataloged by literature databases (see our Scientific Writing: Literature module) and thus widely read. Reviewers may recommend that authors clarify the text or add certain references that they had not previously considered; they might suggest changes because they feel that the authors interpretations are not supported by their data; they may recommend additional research to clarify questionable points in the study; or they may recommend that a manuscript be rejected completely because of questions about the research methods, data collection, or interpretation. Similarly, grant proposal reviewers may make specific recommendations for improving a study and recommend that the authors resubmit their proposal in another grant cycle after it has been improved. Grant reviewers might also recommend that more background research be conducted before the authors submit their proposal again, that another scientist with a different expertise be included on the research team, or that the scope of the research be broadened (or narrowed). Mauclair and colleagues made the majority of the changes requested by the reviewers to their manuscript, they: revised the title, added