一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

一些英文审稿意见的模板

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.

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 problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.

Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?

the quality of English needs improving.

作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊），

但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意，

就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名信息等就都删除了，以免造成不必要的麻烦！

希望朋友们多评价，其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家！

国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志，

被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！

个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，

所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！

登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，

详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！

两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！

（括号斜体内容为我注解）

Reviewer 4

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25

Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.

Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.

Name: XXX

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。" it has been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form.

1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but:

- the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）

- it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),

- it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),

- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).

（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）

2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors

- state that XXXXX

- state that XXXX

- This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size?

（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）

3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write "XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates!!!

（研究了什么？？？）

4.英语写作要提高

（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）

Reviewer 5

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A

Comments to Editor:

Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.

Name:（国人）

Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx

Dear editor:

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used.

The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:

（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）

1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.

（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！

朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好

审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈））

2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 ?C.

（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊）

3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particle size?

（作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）

4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?

（虫子们自己注意）

5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了）

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，making a reference is not charity！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major revision，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，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。

上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。

写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面举例说明各

部分的写法和格式。

编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。

审稿人1：

意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。

意见2：算法表述不明确。

意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。

审稿人2：

意见1：图2太小。

意见2：第3页有个错别字。

很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿人意见1之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对1.1采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：

List of Actions

LOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.

LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.

LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ***.

LOA4: Explanations of the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7. LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.

LOA6: All typos have been removed.

==================分页=======================

Responses to Editor

请在修改稿中用双倍行距。

We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.

==================分页=======================

Responses to Reviewers

To Reviewer 1:

意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。

Thank you for pointing this out. A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.

“blablablabla(此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区别之处)”

意见2：算法表述不明确。

We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm ***, see LOA3.

“blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”

意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。

We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.

“blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”

==================分页=======================

To Reviewer 2:

意见1：图2太小。

We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.

意见2：第3页有个错别字。

We have removed all typos, see LOA5.

==================分页=======================

总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。

https://www.360docs.net/doc/e31617849.html,/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1493261

SCI投稿信件的一些套话(整理)

一、投稿信

1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:

I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for possib publication in the journal of - .

Yours sincerely

2. Dear Dr. A:

Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth w be of interest to the journal’s readers.

3. Dear Dr. A:

Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All aut have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conf of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this le the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.

We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comm from the reviewers.

二、询问有无收到稿件

Dear Editors,

We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, rec acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grat if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manusc again. Thank you in advance for your help.

三、询问论文审查回音

Dear Editors，

It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publicatio your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reache decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possi

四、关于论文的总体审查意见

1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few m revision are list below.

2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statem

require further justification. There are given below.

3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as –

4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.

5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because the ma observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .

6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is satisfactory.

7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communi the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the ad of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.

8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need car editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Sum which have been underlined.

9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in T 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so variation between assays.

10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were anti used?

五、给编辑的回信

1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say tha t –One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mix in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, parag

1 (line 3-8) and

2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.

2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxi table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity ra than an error or omission.

3. Thank you for your letter of –and for the referee’s comments concerning our manusc entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we meet with their approval.

4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments don the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed.

5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Rev portion are underlined in red.

6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript

7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentenc

8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is accept for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.

9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which ar

summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.

10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the pa

11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.

12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had available.

13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.

14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature of the ce we consider it essential.

15. The running title has been changed to “”.

16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake of iso and assaying hexokinase.

17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated in the orig manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful to the referees for poin out their error.

18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser action on chromo has been included (page16, paragraph 2).

19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those originally submi and to which a scale has been added.

20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redraw Figure 3 and 4.

21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been added to the and Reference section. These are:

22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope that we have produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that the revised manusc is acceptable for publication.

23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the referees concerning improvemen this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.

24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for suggesting ho improve our paper.

25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our doing an additi experiment, as suggested by referees.