审稿注意事项及意见模板

如何正确审稿1、不要因为写作水平差就随便拒稿。2、不要故意写作者没有做什么实验或模拟而拒稿。很多人做研究时，都喜欢把问题简化，尽量减少干扰因素。只要作者针对某个因素进行了透彻的研究，千万不能因为没有考虑某些方面而拒稿。比如做材料研究时，由于很多材料非球形，但做数值模拟时为了简化，将材料作为球形来研究，只要利用球形得到的结果真实，有新意，就接受。在审稿意见里建议作者继续做非球形材料。3、炒冷饭的一定要拒稿。为了文章数量，将自己很多发表了的论文加以整理，没有任何新的工作的稿子一定要坚持拒稿。4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。5、不能因为反对自己的观点而拒稿。模板：审稿意见

Thepaperpresentsanapplicationofreassignedwaveletscalogramforrotorsystemfaultdiagnosis.Itisatopicofinteresttotheresearchersintherelatedareasbutthepaperneedsverysignificantimprovementbeforeacceptanceforpublication.Mydetailedcommentsareasfollows:

1.Thewaveletmethod(reassignedwaveletscalogram)usedinthepaperworksverywellfortheunderlyingfaultdiagnosisproblem.Ontheotherhand,thiswaveletmethodisawell-establishedmethod,andthepresentresearchisadirectapplicationofthismethodwithoutnewcontributioninmethodologicalresearch.

2.Fortheabovereason,thepresentationshouldbefocusedontheresults.Unfortunately,thepresentationisfarfromacceptableforpublication.ThematerialwasnotproperlyorganizedanditisstronglysuggestedthattheauthorscheckcarefullytheEnglishwritingandusestandardterminologiesinthetechnicalarea.

3.Thetitleofthepapershouldbemorespecificsincenumerousstudieshavebeendoneonthefaultdiagnosisofrotorsystemsusingwaveletsandtime-frequencymethods.Also,removetheword"research".一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：（1）简要描述论文研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。如何审稿评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，学习他人如何审稿。比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见。做好审稿工作要对同行要有绝对的责任感，通过同行评阅认定高水准文献，对科学进步至关重要。审稿的质量会影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为。审稿人面临的挑战是，要发现那些作者本人没有发现的东西。这需要对文献有全面掌握，既熟悉进展，又熟悉经典。当然，审稿人也会碰到自己不熟悉的知识点，这时可以向他人请教、学习，或者谢绝审稿，请编辑另找他人。做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到同行的认可。令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够增加作者的知识，提高作者从事和报道科学研究的能力。审稿时应该对工作充满耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，又不能“放水”。要提出明确的建议，并有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；。在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，需要反复斟酌。不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够。1．接受审稿邀请对于自己感兴趣的题目，研究工作在自己的专业技能之内，而且又能拿出时间认真审阅时，可考虑接受邀请。对于自己不熟悉的专业领域，应果断拒绝。只要你说明拒绝的理由，编辑不会认为你对审稿不感兴趣。2．阅读和评价先花点时间看看摘要，初步了解在实验设计、方法、结果和结论中，你需要看的重点是什么，特别要看出作者认为其工作的重点是什么。提出一个宽泛的问题，带着问题去看全文：例如，这是一篇关于方法学的论文、是病例总结还是病例报道?与以往的论文相比，本文的新意是什么?7.WefeelthatthispotentiallyinterestingstudyhasbeenmarredbyaninabilitytocommunicatethefindingcorrectlyinEnglishandshouldliketosuggestthattheauthorsseektheadviceofsomeonewithagoodknowledgeofEnglish,preferablenativespeaker.8.Thewordingandstyleofsomesection,particularlythoseconcerningHPLC,needcarefulediting.AttentionshouldbepaidtothewordingofthosepartsoftheDiscussionofandSummarywhichhavebeenunderlined.9.PreliminaryexperimentsonlyhavebeendoneandwithexceptionofthatsummarizedinTable2,nonehasbeenrepeated.Thisisclearlyunsatisfactory,particularlywhenthereissomuchvariationbetweenassays.10.Theconditionofincubationispoorlydefined.Whatisthetemperature?Wereantibodyused?以下是关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。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。ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.3、对于研究设计的rational:Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：Theconclusionsareoverstated.Forexample,thestudydidnotshowifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：Ahypothesisneedstobepresented。6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literaturereview:Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.10、严谨度问题：MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.11、格式（重视程度）：Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples.Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted.Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"InstructionsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.Thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit?

thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.

国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志，被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！（括号斜体内容为我注解）

Reviewer4

ReviewerRecommendationTerm:Reject

OverallReviewerManuscriptRating:25

CommentstoEditor:Reviewersarerequiredtoentertheirname,affiliationande-mailaddressbelow.Pleasenotethisisforadministrativepurposesandwillnotbeseenbytheauthor.

Title(Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.):Prof.

Name:XXX

Affiliation:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Manuscriptentitled"SynthesisXXX。。。。。。。。。。。"ithasbeensynthesizedwithanumberofdifferentmethodsandinavarietyofforms.Thismanuscriptdoesnotbringanynewknowledgeordataonmaterialspropertyandthereforeonlycontributionmaybeinnovelpreparationmethod,stillthispointisnotelaboratedproperly(seeRemark1).Presentationandwritingisratherpoor;thereareseveralstatementsnotsupportedwithdata(forsomeseeRemarks2)andevensomeflaws(seeRemark3).ForthesereasonsIsuggesttorejectpaperinthepresentform.1.ThepaperdescribesanewmethodforpreparationofXXXX,but:

-thenewmethodhastobecomparedwithothermethodsforpreparationofXXXXpowders(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）

-ithastobedescribedwhythismethodisbetterordifferentfromothermethods,(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),

-ithastobeaddedinthemanuscriptwhatkindofXXXXXXbyothermethodscomparedtothisnovelone(INTRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),

-ithastobeoutlinedwhatisthebenefitofthismethod(ABSTRACT,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION,CONCLUSIONS).

（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）2.WhendiscussingXRDdataXXXauthors-statethatXXXXX-statethatXXXX-Thisusuallyhappenswithincreasingsinteringtime,butarethereanydatatopresent,density,particlesize?（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）3.Whendiscussingluminescencemeasurementsauthorswrite"XXXXXIfthereissecondharmonicinexcitationbeamitwillstaytherenomatterwhattypeofmaterialoneinvestigates!（研究了什么？？？）4.英语写作要提高（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）

Reviewer5

ReviewerRecommendationTerm:Reject

OverallReviewerManuscriptRating:N/A

CommentstoEditor:

Title(Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.

Name:（国人）

Affiliation:XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx

Deareditor:

Thankyouforinvitingmetoevaluatethearticletitled"XXXX“.Inthispaper,theauthorsinvestigatedtheinfluencesofsinteringconditiononthecrystalstructureandXXXXXX，However,itisdifficultforustounderstandthemanuscriptbecauseofpoorEnglishbeingused.

Thetextisnotwellarrangedandthelogicisnotclear.ExceptEnglishwriting,therearemanymistakesinthemanuscriptandtheexperimentalresultsdon'tshowgoodandnewresults.SoIrecommendtoyouthatthismanuscriptcannotbeaccepted.Thefollowingarethequestionsandsomemistakesinthismanuscript:（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）1.TheXXXXXXX.However,thiskindmaterialhadbeeninvestigatedsince1997asmentionedintheauthor'smanuscript,andsimilarworkshadbeenpublishedinsimilarjournals.Whatarethenovelfindingsinthepresentwork?Thesynthesismethodandluminescencepropertiesreportedinthismanuscriptdidn'tsupplyenoughevidencetosupporttheprimenoveltystatement.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈））2.Inpage5,theauthor