审稿意见模板

审稿意见要求：

1简单综述本文工作，可从文章中直接摘取。

2提出论文的问题，包括内容，推导，格式，图表，语法等。

例子1

In this paper, the distribution synchronization problem is studied for coupled neural networks with multiple randomly occurring nonlinearities (MRONs), multiple Randomly occurring controllers (MROCs), and multiple randomly occurring updating laws(MROULs). The motivation behind the problem investigated in this manuscript is interesting and meaningful, the manuscript has little expository and technical shortcomings, as detailed in the follows.

(1)The consideration of the MROULs is one of the innovations of this paper, the

author stated that the ROULs in adaptive controllers is widely neglected in the existing literature, however the meaning of the MROULs is not described in detail, it is necessary for the author to illustrate which application contains the MROULs?

Furthermore, it is better to give the readers one or two examples for this case.

(2)Some grammar and spelling errors need to be checked carefully. Such as in figure

e for vertical coordinates should be typed by Latex format.

1 the

(3)In general, it is lack of explanations and analysis for simulation results in the study,

so more explanations is needed.

In conclusion, the manuscript is innovated and interesting, it could be published with minor changes.

例子2

This manuscript mainly considers finite-time input-to-state-stability for the multiagent systems with communication noise under switching interaction topologies. This study has more practical value because it deals with the finite-time consensus problems of the groups of agents using a different method to proof the results from the references in this manuscript. However there exist some expository short comings as detailed in the follows.

1 There are some concepts introduced before the main results, some of them are not clear because it does not have detailed explanation about some symbols such as D+ in the definition 2.

2 This manuscript is lack of simulation to illustrate the effectiveness. I suggest that the author gives simulation and explain the construction of the ISS-Lyapunov function and the selections of some K-functions and K

-functions in details.

3 There are some small mistakes in this manuscript and need more corrections. One of the obvious errors is in the line above the formula (9).

例子3

This paper investigates the problem of dynamic feedback control over unreliable communication channels with nonstationary packet loss. The zero input scheme and the hold input scheme are used to solve this problem respectively. However, I don’t think the manuscript is constructive for the zero input scheme and the hold input scheme are investigated in many reference. Finally, there are not enough innovatory ideas in this manuscript. The detailed comments are as follows.

1 the quality of figure1 is too poor to read.

2 the definition of equation 7 is confused, why the author give this definition.

3 equation 15 is wrong, in fact it is an inequality.

4 we don’t think the variable below equation 17 can be gotten by equation 7

5 we want to know what the relation between the zero input scheme and the hold input is. The relation and the compare should be proposed in detail between the two schemes in this manuscript if it can be accepted.

审稿意见回复模板,中文

审稿意见回复模板,中文篇一：审稿意见模板如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量

评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。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。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是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，得到有益反馈。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，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 methods 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.

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集

SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

审稿意见模板-拒稿

The authors developed a biodegradable PLA/Gelatin/PLA multi-layered film for food packaging and investigated the physical properties of the film in comparison with gelatin and PLA mono-layered films. This multi-layered film, however, is very similar to films prepared in Ref.2 (J. F. Martucci, R. A. Ruseckaite, J. Applied Polym. Sci. 118, 3102–3110 (2010) ). Material and structure of the film were no innovation, and the solution casting method, which was used in this study, showed no significant advantage in film properties compared to previous method in former research. In a whole, the paper cannot be accepted due to lack of novelty Other comments: 1. The full name of PLA should be given in Abstract when mentioned for the first time. 2. The polymerization degree of PLA might have strong influence on the properties of the film, and should be included in the Materials part. 3. In Section 3.2, the authors stated that “All film types were developed with the same total solid content in this study”, which should be mentioned in the Method part. 4. Table 3, the authors mentioned that all the data was collected from five samples. Error bar of each data should be given in the table. 5. In Section 3.1, authors stated that “Control gelatin film exhibited more uniform and fibrillar structure. However, PLA film had more compact

审稿意见该怎么写

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。编辑如何选择审稿专家对于每一份专业的科技期刊（或称学术期刊），其编辑部都会设立一个庞大的编辑委员会，编委会主任一般都由在本行业（或专业）有一定知名度的专家、学者担任，编委会成员由一大批本行业（或专业）的知各专家、教授或学者担任，在编委中，一般都要考虑到各大专院校相关专业、相关科研院所及地域间的名额平衡问题，期刊主办单位和北京地区的名额相应会多一些，而一些省市的名额可能只有一个，有些经济和文化相对落后的省区可能还没有编委。这种情况造成了一些编委天生地就只能是挂名或名誉的。有时一些编委几年都审不了一篇稿件，这种情况是十分正常的。为什么呢？因为在编委会下，编辑部还会有一个审稿专家的名单，这个审稿专家名单是不公开的，这个审稿名单里的专家一般都是处于年富力强、正在一线从事科研工作的专家学者。同时，有时编辑部还要根据具体情况聘请部分两院院士作为学术顾问，对一些对行业有重大影响的稿件进行必要的审查。从而形成了编委不审稿、审稿专家不是编委的状况。编辑选择审稿专家的原则，首先，是专家的经历和学历，特别是专家的经历是最重要的。每年编辑部都要发表格给专家，让专家填写工作经历，即专家系统数据库的刷新，通过“刷新”编辑会得到专家最新的研究动向和科学前沿，在编辑请专家审阅某一篇论文时，编辑就会“心中有数” 从而不会出现选择审稿专家时的“偏差”。当然高学历的专家也是编辑首选的目标。其次，是专家对审稿工作的认真负责态度。有些专家喜欢做一些文字工作，而有些专家学者并不善于从事审稿工作。有些专家对待审稿工作競競业业，从标题到标点，从字词到结构，从正文到参考文献等通篇都进行了修正，并做出全面而客观的评价意见，最后得出了采用与否的建议，这样的审稿专家从编辑的角度来说，是十分喜欢的。而一些专家的审稿意见则是“不用”或“建议录用”几个字了事，对于不用的稿件，无论是编辑还是审稿专家，都应该明明白白地告诉作者不用的理由，而简单的“不用”是无论如何也不能让作者理解的！如果审稿专家的长期这么简单的处理稿件，必将导致编辑对其的“淡化”。同时对于由于繁忙而经常拖着不及时审阅的论文，编辑也会在以后的审稿安排中，少给这些“比较忙”的专家们审稿，有时可能就会在无声无息中取消了这些专家的审稿资格。我接触过几位审稿专家，对论文的审稿意见竟多达三页纸（有

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

英文期刊审稿意见模板

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 methods 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）：

(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板

List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× ...... 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have …… 最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

如何回复审稿人意见

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见 Response to Editor and Reviewer 这是我的英文修改稿回复信 Dear Editor, RE: Manuscript ID We would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments. Below is our response to their comments. Thanks for all the help. Best wishes, Dr. XXX Corresponding Author 下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下： Revision —authors’ response Reviewer #1: Major comments

中文审稿意见怎么写

中文审稿意见怎么写篇一：审稿意见例文（化学）】整篇文中思路清晰，所列数据能够很好的支持相应问题。建议修改后同意接收。篇二：审稿意见模板】如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢? 为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（ 3 ）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（ajrccm ）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? black 等曾对英国杂志（bmj ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对bmj 的420 份稿件的审稿人进行了调查， 2 位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。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。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40 岁左右的审稿人。那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是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，得到有益反馈。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，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提

(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板

如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验： 1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。自我感觉总结（不一定对）： 1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势； 2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息； 3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发； 4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。欢迎大家批评指正。我常用的回复格式: Dear reviewer: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below. 1）

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板 SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as w ell as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully a nd have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red i n the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ××××××。。。。。。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing …….. It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’ s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’ s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. Thes e changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will m eet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions 以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。与大家分享。从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。这些意见分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见，我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高文章的质量。

审稿意见模板

如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。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。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是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，得到有益反馈。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，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为。其次是要具备科学技能。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。这是一项艰巨的任务，需要两项科学技能，一是对文献有全面掌握，即熟悉进展，又熟悉经典；二是掌握相关的科学知识，能够将科理和科学发现应用到新的科学研究中。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。第三要有乐于助人的态度。做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到审稿人所在学术机构或同行的认可。令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量。不满意的作者对审稿人会有一些负面看法：挑剔、草率、武断、教条、肤浅、傲慢、不公正、忌妒、自私自利。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够提高稿件的科学性和易读性，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。审稿时应该对作者及其工作充满敬意，要耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，但又不能“放水”。提出的意见要有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；要提出明确的建议（但不一定明确是接受或拒绝）。最后，审稿当然需要时间。如果只读一遍，恐怕会错失重要的深入看法。在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，常常需要反复斟酌。不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够。审稿给审稿人带来的好处，已如前述。但审稿肯定会与自己的工作、甚至生活发生冲突，看病、、科研、申请课题、休假等等，不一而足。

一些英文审稿意见及回复的

一些英文审稿意见的模板好东西原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major 而不是minor 本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了majorrevision ，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue 的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue 。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A, B, C, D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue 。在Argue 的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对,他提出的方法也很好,但本文的重点是blablabla ,跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重,象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion ,这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子,编辑那也能交待的过去。第四,聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见,如果是minor ,意见只有寥寥数行,那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就,一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候,问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major ，建议至少放一

审稿意见模板

审稿意见回复模板,中文

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

推荐审稿人理由模板

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集

审稿意见模板-拒稿

审稿意见该怎么写

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全

英文期刊审稿意见模板

(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板

如何回复审稿人意见

中文审稿意见怎么写

(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

审稿意见模板

一些英文审稿意见及回复的