会议论文的审稿意见模板

对论文质量的评价，可以参考如下评阅标准：

(1)论文选题与综述：对国民经济，科学技术社会实践的理论意义或实用价值，阅读是否广泛，综述是否全面，是否掌握国内外动态(20%)；

(2)基础理论和专门知识：是否有理论分析及实验验证，立论是否准确，成果是否突出，工作量是否足够，是否掌握坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识(30%)；

(3)科研能力与创造性：是否有新见解，立论与成果是否反映出具有较强的科研能力和创造性等 (40%)；

(4)写作能力：条理是否清晰，层次是否分明，论文格式是否规范，学风是否严谨等(10%)。

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。

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 methods used in the study.◆ Furthermore,an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould 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 showifthe 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 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A＞B的证明，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previouslyknown work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is animprovement 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 completelycorrect. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors"which shows examples.◆ Beforesubmitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared andformatted. If you are unsure, pleaseconsult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the"Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of thescreen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆ It is notedthat your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise intechnical 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.◆ The authorsmust have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service beforesubmission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences containgrammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆ Aspresented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense,and clause construction.◆ The Englishof your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistancefrom a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language isEnglish.◆ Please havesomeone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper andcorrect it. ?◆ the qualityof English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆ I would bevery glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject isinteresting.◆ There iscontinued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of BiomedicalMaterials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.◆ TheSubmission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.--------------------怎样写英文审稿意见首先说明一下，写这篇博文是缘于张忆文同学的博文（审一篇SCI稿件，整个人都不好了（续）。张同学的博文其实写得很不错，自己的切身体会，很有参考价值，我是认真读了。但博文后附上的英文审稿意见却让我哑然失笑。我这里声明一下，丝毫没有嘲笑，显摆的意思，因为这是张同学第一次写英文审稿意见，老实说比我当年第一次审稿写得好多了。话说我第一次给英文期刊审稿，并不是期刊编辑邀请，而是导师安排的任务，具体地说就是主编邀请导师审稿，导师出于训练我的目的，让我先审，然后再跟他讨论，修改。我当时的审稿程序是这样的：首先打开金山词霸和google翻译，干什么呀？查生词呗。要知道人家写的英文还有很多不认识的单词，不查哪行啊！就这样，我几乎花了三四天的时间，总算把人家的论文看完了。看完以后这审稿意见可怎么写啊？没办法，只能去找导师。导师说审一篇文章，第一要看的是文章的结构。什么是文章的结构？文章的结构其实是指文章的内在逻辑关系。什么是内在逻辑关系？简单地讲就是文章的引言部分文献回顾是否全面，是否层层铺垫提出问题，是否在引言末尾概括本文内容框架。引言过后就是methodology部分。这部分无非常用的就三种方法：解析理论，实验，数值计算或者再加上一个Case study. 这几部分的内在逻辑，也就是这几种方法是个什么关系，前后顺序是什么一定要清楚明了。否者你就大胆地写上这样的句子：This paper is not well structured. It is difficult to follow. 然后明确指出论文结构应该如何修改。第二，就是英文。关于英文问题首先要看作者出身。如果是亚洲人，重点注意中国大陆，日本的作者，韩国，中东的作者的也好不到哪里去。这些地方的作者大多数英文都是有问题的。有问题当然需要修改。这时候可以用这样的句子：There are sloppy grammatical and editorial issues everywhere in this paper. Many of them could cause difficulties to the readers. 然后举几个例子。这里给个小窍门，如果对自己写的某个词，或句子不是很有信心，那就放到google里搜一下，很容易找到相似的语句，以核实自己写的东西是否地道。第三，就是专业问题的探讨。专业问题的意见，如果能抓住要点，击中要害，即使你最后把文章毙了，作者也会心服口服的。当然，大家都没什么深仇大恨，不见得非得往死里搞，才能显出你的严谨，高水平。指出问题的同时，如果能给出建设性的修改意见是最受欢迎的。第四，强调细节。大家可能都有这样的体会，审稿意见切记假大空，高大上。而是要从细节出发，以理服人，用事实说话。这样才有说服力。相反，如果不分青红皂白，一句缺乏创新性，就把文章给毙了，就会很让人不服，同时，这样的审稿意见也会让主编很为难。如何才能让人服气呢？你说人家的方法没有创新，请给出你详细的理由，最好给出相关的参考文献。第五，整理自己的审稿意见，如果能适当分类会更好。比如说：-Technical items for which revisions are compulsory:-Technical items for which revisions are recommended:-Items for which editorial revisions are required:这样无论对主编做决定还是作者修改都非常清楚，一目了然。同时也说明审稿人至少看起来很professional.最后说个窍门：很简单，就是认真解读自己论文的审稿意见，认真学习，包括学习人家使用的英文套路，记熟，等自己审稿时，如数奉还，档次一下就上去了。自己到底什么水平，天知地知，我知，你不知。