英文毕业论文审稿模板

英语专业毕业论文其实格式和一般其它专业差不多，具体论文格式要以你学校提供的毕业论文模板为准，因为每个学校的论文格式多多少少都是不一样的，如果找不到合适的格式，可以百度下：普刊学术中心，也提供有很多论文格式模板和范文，可以多学习下

一、英语论文的标题一篇较长的英语论文(如英语毕业论文)一般都需要标题页,其书写格式如下:第一行标题与打印纸顶端的距离约为打印纸全长的三分之一,与下行(通常为by,居中)的距离则为5cm,第三、第四行分别为作者姓名及日期(均居中).如果该篇英语论文是学生针对某门课程而写,则在作者姓名与日期之间还需分别打上教师学衔及其姓名(如:dr./)及本门课程的编号或名称(如:english 734或british novel).打印时,如无特殊要求,每一行均需double space,即隔行打印,行距约为(论文其他部分行距同此).就学生而言,如果英语论文篇幅较短,亦可不做标题页(及提纲页),而将标题页的内容打在正文第一页的左上方.第一行为作者姓名,与打印纸顶端距离约为,以下各行依次为教师学衔和姓、课程编号(或名称)及日期;各行左边上下对齐,并留出左右的页边空白(下同).接下来便是论文标题及正文(日期与标题之间及标题与正文第一行之间只需隔行打印,不必留出更多空白).二、英语论文提纲英语论文提纲页包括论题句及提纲本身,其规范格式如下:先在第一行(与打印纸顶端的距离仍为左右)的始端打上 thesis 一词及冒号,空一格后再打论题句,回行时左边须与论题句的第一个字母上下对齐.主要纲目以大写罗马数字标出,次要纲目则依次用大写英文字母、阿拉伯数字和小写英文字母标出.各数字或字母后均为一句点,空出一格后再打该项内容的第一个字母;处于同一等级的纲目,其上下行左边必须对齐.需要注意的是,同等重要的纲目必须是两个以上,即:有ⅰ应有ⅱ,有a应有b,以此类推.如果英文论文提纲较长,需两页纸,则第二页须在右上角用小写罗马数字标出页码,即ii(第一页无需标页码).三、英语论文正文有标题页和提纲页的英语论文,其正文第一页的规范格式为:论文标题居中,其位置距打印纸顶端约5cm,距正文第一行约.段首字母须缩进五格,即从第六格打起.正文第一页不必标页码(但应计算其页数),自第二页起,必须在每页的右上角(即空出第一行,在其后部)打上论文作者的姓,空一格后再用阿拉伯数字标出页码;阿拉伯数字(或其最后一位)应为该行的最后一个空格.在打印正文时尚需注意标点符号的打印格式,即:句末号(句号、问号及感叹号)后应空两格,其他标点符号后则空一格.四、英语论文的文中引述正确引用作品原文或专家、学者的论述是写好英语论文的重要环节;既要注意引述与论文的有机统一,即其逻辑性,又要注意引述格式 (即英语论文参考文献)的规范性.引述别人的观点,可以直接引用,也可以间接引用.无论采用何种方式,论文作者必须注明所引文字的作者和出处.目前美国学术界通行的做法是在引文后以圆括弧形式注明引文作者及出处.现针对文中引述的不同情况,将部分规范格式分述如下.五、英文参考文献格式单一作者著作的书籍:姓,名字首字母.(年). 书名(斜体). 出版社所在城市:出版社.Sheril, R. D. (1956). The terrifying future: Contemplating color television. San Diego: Halstead.两位作者以上合著的书籍:姓,名字首字母., & 姓,名字首字母.(年). 书名(斜体). 出版社所在城市:出版社. Smith, J., & Peter, Q. (1992). Hairball: An intensive peek behind the surface of an enigma. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University Press.文集中的文章:Mcdonalds, A. (1993). Practical methods for the apprehension and sustained containment of supernatural entities. In G. L. Yeager (Ed.), Paranormal and occult studies: Case studies in application (pp. 42–64). London: OtherWorld Books.期刊中的文章(非连续页码):Crackton, P. (1987). The Loonie: God's long-awaited gift to colourful pocket change? Canadian Change, 64(7), 34–37.期刊中的文章(连续页码):姓,名字首字母.(年). 题目. 期刊名(斜体). 第几期,页码.Rottweiler, F. T., & Beauchemin, J. L. (1987). Detroit and Narnia: Two foes on the brink of destruction. Canadian/American Studies Journal, 54, 66–146.月刊杂志中的文章:Henry, W. A., III. (1990, April 9). Making the grade in today's schools. Time, 135, 28-31.(学术堂提供更多论文知识)

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 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. 本文来自CSDN博客，转载请标明出处： 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 p aper. 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 来源:.htm 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。 附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 … (. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, . 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.