英文论文审稿意见英文版VIP

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 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 problem8、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AB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 problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English. Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ? the quality of English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers: I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting. There is continued interest in your manuscript titled which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials. The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.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 ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 68Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types Corresponding Author: YuRecommendation: 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 theSecond ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 67Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types Corresponding Author: YuRecommendation: 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 BaoAuthors 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: Editors Comments:This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayedabove. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers,each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. Themain points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent acrossthe reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introductionneeds to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you proposeto 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 readerswould 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 thereviewers about the design. The most notable (but not the only problem) isthat there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be comparedat nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that atleast floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely tosignificantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listenersare tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance wasextremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-maskerratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the olderlisteners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvagedif you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratiofor the older listeners. That didnt work out and you didnt adjust to it.Im sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that itprecludes publication of t!heolder versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a validcomparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscriptand the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impressioncomparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensationlevels at which the older and younger groups listened (if the target wasfixed at 56 dBA). The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the maskerdelay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been anice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have beencleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in yourlab, and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of datawere different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is notvarying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviewspoint out, your conditions present brand new complications because the ITIchanges the spatial impression of the target, may change the energeticmasking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the sametime. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performancesubstantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatialimpressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very differentthan those when the target is at v!erylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on theinfluence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedenceeffect, particularly the perception of echoes at the longer delays. YuanChuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASAin 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breakingapart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlowand Parks (1961). To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are oftenaccompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity ofyour conditions. However, it is important that your experimental designallows you separate out the various contributions to your results. I think there are several options for you to consider: (1) If you think itis very important to publish all the data you have right now, you couldwithdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.(2) You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousnessof the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision thatincludes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity ofthe older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you, I dontthink this is a promising alternative. (3) You could collect more data onolder listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better.With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such datawere collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, itcould be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision wouldbe 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) Youcould drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit amuch shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on thenoise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to drawinferences about release from energetic versus informational masking fromthe data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale forwhat your specific question is about release from masking, why yourconditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worryabout how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to bedistinguished. (5) You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider amore straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask witholder listeners. Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternativesdescribed will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whateveryou decide to do, please consider the reviewers comments very carefully asthey have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improvingthe 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 requiredfurther explanation. MS#: 07-04147 Huang et al. Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informationalmasking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults. This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger andolder listeners, as a function of inter-target interval (ITI) in two maskerconditions (speech masking and noise masker). The same target speech waspresented from two different locations simultaneously in two differentmaskers, one from each location (L or R). Results show that release frominformational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners whenthe 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 isunnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while someimportant terms and information are left unexplained. The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping fromplace to place. For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberationand the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-pageto talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation. In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of thestudy and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentionedthat the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the wholeprecedence-operation range.can induce a release of target speech fromspeech masking or noise masking. However, they did not explain how and whymanipulating 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 indifferent conditions can answer the questions under investigation. 2. Report of res