医学论文审稿意见模板英文版

问题一：工科类文章审稿意见怎么写 英文 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 问题二：英文审稿意见怎么写 e shouted. And amid a cheer from the ship, the two boat 问题三：论文接收 英文审稿意见 怎么写 ①正确性：论点的说服力根植于对客观事物的正确反映，而这又取决于作者的立场、观点、态度、方法是否正确，如果论点本身不正确，甚至是荒谬的，再怎么论证也不能说服人。因此，论点正确是论文的最起码的要求。 ②鲜明性：赞成什么、反对什么，要非常鲜明，千万不能模棱两可，含糊不清。 ③新颖性：论点应该尽可能新颖、深刻，能超出他人的见解，不是重复他人的老生常谈，也不是无关痛痒、流于一般的泛泛而谈，应该尽可能独特、新颖。 问题四：英文科技论文的审稿意见怎么写 1.原创性和显著性是论文的生命. 正如邹承鲁院士等在“再论科学道德问题”中指出,在国际核心刊物发表的论文，原则上都应当是“在国际上首次”描述的新的观测和实验事实，首次提出的概念和模型，首次建立的方程，也包括对已有的重大观测（实验）事实的。 问题五：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......>> 问题六：英文论文需添加文献的审稿意见怎么写 议论文是对某个问题或某件事进行分析、评论，表明自己的观点、立场、态度、看法和主张的一种文体。议论文有三要素，即论点、论据和论证。阐述作者的立场和观点的一种文体。这类文章或从正面提出某种见解、主张，或是驳斥别人的观点。新闻报刊中的评论、杂文、说法或日常生活中的思想感受等，都属于议论文的范畴。 这类文章或从正面提出某种见解、主张，或是驳斥别人的观点。杂文、说法或日常生活中的思想感受等，都属于议论文的范畴。 问题七：科技论文审稿，二审时如何给出审稿意见？一审的意见都给出答复了，基本满意，想要接受，用英文怎么说？ 如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用 you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .....according to review ments. 如果是接受，你可以用 We are very pleased to inform you that your paper xxxxx has been accepted by [journal name]. Please prepare your paper by journal template............... 问题八：对于一个英文审稿意见，我的理解对吗 没看到呢？是否忘了上传

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.