LuckyXue521
问题一:求如何写论文审稿意见? 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条: (1)简要描述论文的研究内容和意义,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。 根据以上三点,你可以适当发挥。 问题二:审稿意见怎么写 审稿意见怎么写 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条: (1)简要描述论文的研究内容和意义,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。 英文论文审稿意见汇总 以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。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。 Itis noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertisein technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar,spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study areclear 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 ifthe side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定: Ahypothesis 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 parison of the algorithm with previouslyknown w......>> 问题三:文章审稿意见提到文章结构的问题,怎么回答 文章进入审稿流程后,得到的结果无非是大修、小修、拒稿及接收四种情况。小修与接收是最好的结局(小修基本就等同于接收)。40%的论文在大修后接收。但是,相当一部分论文会被拒稿。SCI论文拒稿,该如何修改?这是一个困扰科研工作者的问题。很大一部分作者在收到拒稿的消息后,很多作者认为审稿人的意见合理,但是时间不允许修改,直接转投到其他期刊。这是非常不合理的。要知道拒稿的论文在经过其他审稿人审理时,也会得到类似的审稿意见。还不如,在接到拒稿信后就开始修改,尽早解决问题。再者,有时候审稿人的意见不尽合理,可以适当申辩。因此,多数拒稿SCI论文,可从以下几种方式选择解决之道: 1.如果文章拒稿是因为数据或分析有严重缺陷,如样本量不足等。这类文章可以先放一放,等找到更广泛的证据支持或有了更明确的结论后,再将修改的文章投稿至相应的期刊。期刊编辑会考虑重新受理。有些作者存在侥幸的心理,认为换个期刊后审稿人或许不会找出数据或分析层面的不足。这种几率非常小,毕竟论文的数据处理及分析方式决定了结果的可靠性。 2.如果被拒论文不是文章中的数据或分析不足,而是重要性或创新点缺乏。那么,作者就要仔细考虑审稿人的意见并认真修改,转投到影响因子该该刊低一点的期刊尝试。不同期刊对论文的创新点要求不一,作者投稿前有必要了解其刊发要求,进而缩短收稿周期。 3.如果是因为审稿人审稿时不够公正所致的拒稿,作者可以礼貌地申辩下。审稿人有时也会犯错误,并非源于专业知识,而是因为有些时候期刊的编辑找的审稿人未必是作者这个领域的专家。即便他们的审稿意见看似不够专业,我们也要礼貌地申辩。如果作者对否定有异议,可以向编辑或主编提出自己的意见。只要自己是正确的就应该坚持,这就是学术本身的意义所在。在回复中要委婉地表达自己的意见。如果编辑同意作者的意见,论文可以重新进入到新的一轮审稿程度。 4.从自身找原因,仔细修改。多数作者的拒稿多源于文章构架的不够合理,进而造成文章意义不够突出。拒稿后,着重进行文章结构的调整。尤其是讨论部分,很多作者的讨论是对结果的再陈述,但实际上写讨论也要与购物一样,讲究货比三家。只有将自身所得数据与既往结果进行比较,才能突出本研究的优势所在。这就需要作者,多看些相关的文献,挖掘其他研究与本研究的衔接之处。 问题四:论文审稿意见怎么写 我以前的博士论文,评阅人就是根据我论文里的摘要写的,精炼一下就OK了。评阅书里面应该有自己写的创新点,你可以参照写一下。leonshane(站内联系TA)首先对这篇论文进行简单概括,指出其主要线索:研究目标、方法、意义、创新等,然后指出一两个最大的问题,如果其问题的确是致命的话,那么久建议修改。 你写完你导师会帮你把关的,如果他不看,建议你申请换导师。。。shuoyeb(站内联系TA)一、概况评价项目:论文的创新性成果 论文的学术价值及应用价值 论文反映出作者的基础理论和专门知识水平论文写作论文总体评价 二、综合所有评阅人对论文的学术评语 (选题的意义,论文的创新性成果,学术价值及应用价值,实验结果和计算数据的合理性及可靠性等)……三、论文中存在的问题、不足及意见或建议 1. 评议人认为第*章第*节****中有****的问题*****。 2. ……lbh535(站内联系TA)评审意见应点面结合。面就是总体概况,而点则至少体现评阅人有没有仔细看内容。现在好多论文评审一审就是一大批,特别是社会科学方面的,评阅意见都写些泛泛而谈的东西,感觉评阅人就没太仔细看。qiuqu_200212(站内联系TA)建议答辩,然后简单写些评语即可。k10001(站内联系TA)还有一段八股:论文表明,***在所研究领域掌握了坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识,具备了(很强的)独立从事科学研究工作的能力,论文(具有创新性,)达到了博士论文学术水平。建议组织博士学位论文答辩。nono2009(站内联系TA)评阅表中有提示的,按提示要求的几项内容写评阅意见即可。songjm12(站内联系TA)好好阅读评审书前两页要求部分 写好评语就行了yuffey(站内联系TA)研究问题清晰不,研究目标明确不,方法得当不,结果明显不? 工作量饱满不,内容充实不?等等 最好的方法是,找个以前的博士论文,抄写抄写。八股文~~ 问题五:如何写审稿意见 在书写审稿意见时一般至少要写三条: (1)简要描述论文的研究内容和意义,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。 审稿意见最好不要带有强烈感情,就算是作为那篇稿件的责任编辑你觉得它有多么好,也要尽量地克制自己,用一种略带轻松的语气对你的稿件做出客观的评价。 这样做的好处是:给主编留有余地,当他和你意见相左时,不至于对你的“偏激”感到反感。同时也给自己留有余地,万一稿件被枪毙,也不至于因为过满的感情而遭受打击。 而我们常用的审稿意见有如下: 1、目标和结果不清晰。 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 3、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨. 4、语言问题(出现最多的问题) 笔者简单例举了了一些,看官可以根据自身的需要,扩展 问题六:《审稿意见怎么写》 一般审稿意见至少要包含三条: (1)简要描述论文的研究内容和意义,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。 根据以上三点,你可以适当发挥。 提起审稿,许多人认为所谓的审稿就是受期刊编辑的委托,对一篇论文作出正确的评价。这一点大凡大家都知道,为什么呢?许多博友可能都不同程度地参与过审稿工作而已。那么,期刊编辑如何选择审稿专家,专家如何审阅稿件,即如何正确评价一篇论文,专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。 问题七:编辑这样的审稿意见该怎么做 :rol:不用啥都模版吧,都写英文文章了,正常的表达总会吧 写是肯定会写的,只是没碰到过这种情况,不知道应该如何处理,是逐条反驳说明,还是直接总结,说明情况。sxpccw(站内联系TA)要有耐心,毕竟人家掌握生死大权screw(站内联系TA)委婉得email to the editor问问看yw__577(站内联系TA)Originally posted by thinking at 2010-08-18 12:37:14: 写是肯定会写的,只是没碰到过这种情况,不知道应该如何处理,是逐条反驳说明,还是直接总结,说明情况。 如果是风马牛不相及的意见那肯定就不response了,给编辑说明情况让他double check一下是否搞错jxgznd_zyj(站内联系TA)这个写个E-mail解释一下就OK了,有理的事不用太谦卑了felicity6056(站内联系TA)这个编辑真是个饭桶!haizhfly(站内联系TA)呵呵 正常质疑 不用担心!suchanghong(站内联系TA)可能是审稿人传错文件了,把另一篇文章的审稿意见传了:D:D:Drjz1717(站内联系TA)正常解释一下 就可以了吧 他也是人啊thinking(站内联系TA)Originally posted by suchanghong at 2010-08-18 19:06:18: 可能是审稿人传错文件了,把另一篇文章的审稿意见传了:D:D:D 就是把别人的传给我了,所以看得我是一头雾水,提出的意见和文章完全对不上。郁闷。Johnyucl(站内联系TA)我曾经投给一个期刊,给的意见,驴唇不对马嘴,我的做法是这样: (2)就在他原话的基础上,引用原话后,每一点开始反驳,比如他说的某一点,根本就不是他说的那样,我直接说,我不同意这个观点,然后给出理由; (4)有时候,不能给审稿人面子,他自己都不懂,还给别人审,这就是他的不对了; (5)用庄重的书面语反驳,有利于编辑接受你的意见,重新分配审稿人或者直接录用;Johnyucl(站内联系TA)还有,不要给编辑写信了,直接修改后用Notes on the revision说明,否则又浪费时间,可能效果还不好!kiruwa(站内联系TA)我也碰到相同情况,我的老板说不用管,把reviwers的意见回答了就可以了. 问题八:论文写得不错,审稿人怎样写审稿意见 引言:引言又称前言、序言和导言,用在论文的开头。引言一般要概括地写出作者意图,说明选题的目的和意义,并指出论文写作的范围。引言要短小精悍、紧扣主题。 〈2)论文正文:正文是论文的主体,正文应包括论点、论据、论证过程和结论。主体部分包括以下内容: a.提出问题-论点; b.分析问题-论据和论证; c.解决问题-论证方法与步骤; 问题九:论文审稿意见什么意思 你的文章达不到发表的标准。 如果你还是坚持想发表,要按照附件的要求进行修改,并且在6周内重新提交PDF版本的论文,否则视为放弃。 问题十:关于会议论文的审稿意见 现在会议论文的要求一般都不高,这样,你首先把自己的信息补全,包括通讯地址、联系方式,作者姓名....你懂得,这一点在修改稿中指出,没见过你的文章真不好说,但是如果需要增加创新点的话,增加前言中的参考文献和你的研究的对比,说说别人的缺点,突出你的优势。再投过去就应该差不过了,个人意见哦!!呵呵!祝好运!
Arsenalzoe
王应宽Wang Yingkuan2011-07-23Beijing, China因为同时在运作3本国际英文刊(IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal),论文同行评审的专家来自世界各地。每次收到的评审意见千差万别,而且不同国家或地区的专家的评审意见呈现一定的规律性,随即不由得做些比较。比较得出的基本结论是:欧美国家专家的评审意见详尽具有更大参考价值,台湾地区的同行评审专家次之,大陆专家的评审意见最为简省。文后附上几篇评审意见(所列大陆专家评审意见还是相对较好的),看看便知,一目了然。我曾与编辑同行讨论关于国内专家审稿的问题。共同的见解是,一线一流的专家基本不审稿。若应邀审稿,要么直接拒审,要么敷衍几句了事;比较认真的专家大都让其所指导的研究生代为评审论文。不论让谁审,最后的评审意见与国外专家的评审相比总不令人满意,存在较大的差距。国外专家评审论文大都是义务劳动,没有任何报酬。但专家们认为自己作为科研人员是科学共同体中的一分子,有义务担任同行专家为他人研究成果的学术质量把关。自己为别人的论文评审把关付出了智慧和劳动,别人也会为自己的研究和论文评审把关,也会付出相应的劳动。专家之间相互协作,相互帮助,虽然没有评审报酬,但大家都觉得平等。而且,国外的专家大都言行一致,故能认真地做好每一篇文章的评审工作。有的评审意见详尽的令人赞叹、钦佩和感动。因此,大家看到他们的评审意见都非常详尽而具有参考价值。而国内的专家评审论文为何大都仓促应付,三言两语,或言之无物,或毫无参考价值?主要原因是一线一流的专家都太“忙”,以至忙得都没时间做学术了。据我从事学术期刊工作十多年的经历,不论评审中文文章还是英文文章,国内专家评审意见普遍简单,评审的质量不高,不但看不出有改观的迹象,还有进一步恶化的趋势。文章中存在的很多的问题,专家审后没有看出来或没有指出来。如果直接发表,错误或疏漏太多影响论文的质量和期刊的声誉。在外审专家靠不住时,就要依靠内审做些完善和提高。如果外审专家把不好关,编辑部又无能力通过内审把关,发表出来的论文的质量也就可想而知了。是否国内专家不擅长评审论文呢?非也。据了解,许多国内专家被国外知名期刊邀请审稿时,他们非常积极认真地评审论文,并在规定时间返回颇有水准的评审意见。据说他们也能做得与欧美国际同行专家一样好。可见,国内专家评不好国内期刊论文不是水平问题,而是态度问题,“时间”问题,或者有其他方面的原因。同行评审是学术期刊论文质量把关的重要途径。如果大家都不在乎,把严肃认真的“盲审”变成“瞎审”,学术危矣!国内期刊请国内专家评审论文大都支付审稿费的。当然,限于各期刊的经济困难,审稿费报酬普遍都不高。因此,同行专家大都不很在乎那点可怜的审稿费。如果评审不好文章会影响专家的声誉和公信度。国内特别是大陆的专家既不在乎钱,也不在乎自己的声誉,不知道他们究竟在乎啥?中国是雷锋诞生的国度,按理说,当志愿者做公益应该很有基础。但在学术圈,就拿国内外同行专家无私奉献评审论文作比较,中国的同行专家做的还很不够,需要好好向国际同行学习。附:CIGR Journal栏目主编加拿大专家对一篇退稿文章的评审意见June 27, 2011Dear Prof. H L L:Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAs CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to , the manuscript is deficient in several scientific decision is to decline the manuscript without peer preliminary review is attached to the end of this note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work ., Section III editor,Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,Section Editor ReviewTitle: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIESCIGR # 1911Authors:H L L et 27, 2011General:The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the manuscript is not acceptable in its present needs a lot of biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil only description given is that the soil was a sandy like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear , tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was : A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was , the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, . ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the , and and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong index is normally given in MPa or , the values for cone index are much lower than normally is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105�0�2 C for soil moisture like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are , things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you , how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass?3)In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the )In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an )In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the )In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the )Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chiefI recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form.中国大陆专家1评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper assess the O2 consumption rate and the CO2 evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this comments:In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorI hope the paper will be published to guide more ’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家2评审论文意见(相对而言属于国内专家评审较为认真仔细的了)Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I comments:(1)I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper.(2)In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 、、 respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “、”.(3)The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”.Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division EditorReviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)中国大陆专家3评审论文意见Section III: CommentsThis section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need. General Comments:This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring comments:Revision suggestions of this paper: 1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in . It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section . It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section . This paper is required re-review after Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor
每天只睡4小时
审稿结论包括的内容有:标题名称(题目)、关键词(或主题词)、提纲、引言、结束语。
提出论证结果。在这一部分中,作者应对全篇文章所论证的内容作一个归纳,提出自己对问题的总体性看法和意见。例如,《浅论社会主义市场经济条件下的乡镇领导方法》一文的结论:总之,建立社会主义市场经济体制,是一项艰巨复杂的社会系统工程,在这个新的体制转换阶段,乡镇领导干部作为农村社会主义市场经济建设的带头人。
在思想认识、领导方法等方面都必须来一个很大的转变,才能适应迅速变化的新形势,进一步推动农村社会主义市场经济的发展。机关后勤管理体制和管理制度改革的任务是艰巨的,在当前,我们仍处在上述较容易见到成效的某些方面进行探索的阶段,我们要力争有一、二个突破口,在取得成果之后,不断把后勤改革引向深入,达到服务社会化的最终目的。
结论的意义:
从哲学观点来看,结论是相对一定条件而言的,结论与条件互为因果关系,条件(原因)是引起一定现象的现象,结论(结果)是由于条件作用而产生的现象。对于(专科、本科等)毕业论文当中,结论是毕业论文的收尾部分,是围绕本论所作的结束语。其基本的要点就是总结全文,加深题意。
对采用“结论”作结的论文及结论本身内容进行具体分析,发现它具有如下特征;研究报告类、试验研究类、理论推导类等论文以“结论”作结束部分的居多;“结论”之前的章节内容通常是“结果分析或讨论”;较多地采用分条编序号的格式表述,语句严谨,概括简明,传达信息具体而确定,或定性或定量。
期刊论文,仅仅是发表在杂志和刊物上的论文,需要在杂志上刊登出来,这是期刊论文的定义。期刊论文必须在杂志社通过查重处理,重复率达标后才能进行刊载。很多朋友写好期刊
会计(除审计):1.会计研究2.财会月刊3.中国注册会计师4.会计之友5.财会通讯.综合4.财务与会计.综合版(改名为:财务与会计)7.上海立信会计学院学报审计
论文的审核周期得分情况,分刊物。两方面来说:如果你是投稿到普刊,就是非核心期刊,审稿周期一般在1-2个月左右,如果是核心期刊,审稿周期在2-4个月左右。如果你是
《心理学报》 是国内心理学最顶级的期刊,是中国心理学会和中科院心理所主办的学术期刊 官网: 心理学报 《心理科学》 (官网: 心理科学 ) 《心理
Under review表示审稿人的意见已上传,说明审稿人已接受审稿,正在审稿中,这应该是一个漫长的等待(期刊通常会限定审稿人审稿时间,一般为一个月左右)。当然