2014 英文SCI审稿之痛
SCI投稿全过程信件模板一览(Coverletter,催稿信等)
一、最初投稿Cover letterDear Editors：We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title", which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name". No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere，in whole or in part。
All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work，we evaluated ……（简要介绍一下论文的创新性）。
I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name".The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration：1）Name A E-mail：××××＠××××2) Name B E—mail: ××××＠××××We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below。
SCIcoverletter 催稿信 修稿回复
Cover letterDear Editors:We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled 一、最初投稿. No conflict “Journal Name”“Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication inof interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authorsfor publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described wasfor under consideration published has not been previously, and not original research thatpublication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript). I hope this paper is (简要介绍一下论文的创新性that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated ……your reviewers for is a list of possible Journal suitable for “Name”.The followingdeeply ××××We Name B E-mail: ××××@A consideration:1) Name E-mail: ××××@××××2) appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving commentst hesitate to contact me at the address from the reviewers. If you have any queries, pleasedon'E-Corresponding author: Name: ×××below.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××:Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the Dear Prof. ×××mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信Paper right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “has been lasting for more than two With Editor”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of Title“”months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscripthas been sent to reviewers or not?I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some ofyour time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer'scomments.Thank you very much for your consideration.Best regards! Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author: Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××Dear Editor, I'm not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of mysubmitted manuscript which is submitted on Jun 24. The manuscript number is “SERREV-D-14-00023”and title is “Prediction and Structural Analysis of Impact Factor for JournalsIndexed in SCI: A Case Study of Nature”. I have not yet received a reply and am wonderingwhether you have reached a decision. I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend someof your time check the status for me. With best regards Sincerely yoursSCI投稿---稿件状态咨询信四个范例范例一（推荐）：邮件标题：Inquire about the status of manuscript (No: XXXX)正文：Dear Editor,Sorry for disturbing you.I'm not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled XXXX (ID: XXXX) although the status of QUEUED FOR REVIEW for mymanuscript have been lasting for XXXX months.I am just wondering that my manuscript has been send to reviewers or not?I am very pleased to hear from you. Thank you very much for your consideration.Yours sincerely,XXXE-mail: xxx@xxxx范例二：Dear Editor,journal we submitted our manuscript(ID:je-2008-00649n)to the It has been 4 months sincebeing still if is accepted. to ask whether our paper has been And email office. I write thisreviewed, when can I get the information of the final result?I would very much appreciate you if you could afford a little time to answer these question.Thank a lot!XXXX范例三：Dear Editor,months 3 journal about the article (No. ********) submitted to your I'm the first author ofago. I'm sorry writing to you to ask about its review progress. Many thanks and looking forwardfor your reply!Best wishes!Yours sincerely,*******范例四：Dear editor,Paper No.: ***Paper Title: ***the on update information ago. Could you give us paper We submitted the three monthscurrent status of our submission? If there is anything that we can do, please let us know. Anyinformation will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.Yours sincerelyXXXX三、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）:On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you verymuch for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewersvery much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscriptentitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer's comments carefully and havemade revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like tosubmit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you andreviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you foryour letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “PaperTitle”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising andimproving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We havestudied 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 theresponds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer'scomments:Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2.Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。
专业英语科技论文写作
Structure arrangement and writing Structure
Title Authors and Address Abstract Key words Where do I start?
Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion & Conclusion
NDD----New drug discovery 新药发现 NDC----New drug candidate 候选药物 LC---Leading compound 先导化合物 HTS---High-throughput screening 高通量筛选 NCE---new chemical entities 新颖化学实体 Me-too 模仿类药物 IND---Investigational new drug 申请作为临床研究新药 NDA---New drug application 申请作为注册新药 CRF----Case report form 病例报告表 ICF----Informed consent form 知情同意书 IB-----Investigator’s Brochure 研究者手册 CRO---Contract research organization 合同研究组织 QC-----Quality control QA----- Quality assurance TCM----Traditional Chinese Medicine OTC----Over The Counter 非处方药
刊物的宗旨和范围； 各栏目论文的长度、章节的顺序安排, 等；
采取何种体例格式? 如: 页边距、纸张大小、参 考文献的体例、图表的准备、等； 履行何种形式的同行评议?
英文论文审稿意见英文版
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 showif 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 ratio7、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 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 str ongly 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 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 been edited because the subject is interesting.◆There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat erials.◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见Ms. Ref. No.:Title:Materials Science and EngineeringDear Dr. ,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. 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&39; 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—11 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—21 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—31 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;Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by two reviewers, and their comments are as follows:The Comments by the First ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 68Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments: In the present work the authors introduce a new energy-based aromaticity measure. Referred as restricted geometry optimization, the extra stabilization energy ESE is calculated by means of an energy scheme in which the different double bonds are localized. This methodology is applied to different sets of aromatic systems, and the results are compared to previous already existing schemes. This procedure seems to work better than previous ones, however it must be underlined that with a much greater complexity. It avoids having to choose a reference structure, and it is worth noticing that benzene appears to be the most aromatic system. Thus the method presented might mean a new contribution to the different aromacity criteria, however before acceptance for publication I would recommend important changes to be taken into account in the manuscript.The new method used is not presented in a comprehensible way. In the second paragraph of the Introduction the authors should already describe it, and not first presenting the results for benzene and not going into the method till the second section. The formulas used must be described precisely as well. So I would recommend that before acceptance the manuscript should be rewritten in order to make it more comprehensible not only to physical chemists but also to the experimental chemical community, and at the same time to improve the English used.Other minor points are:- First line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in organic chemistry, but most of organic compounds are not Introduction, line 4: notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, howevergeometry-based HOMA, magnetic-based NICS and electronic-based SCI, PDI methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.- Section , last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2This should be pointed out in the manuscript.- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8. Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006The Comments by the Second ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 67Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate StabilizationEnergies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments:Comments on the manuscript "Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types" by Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng BaoAuthors propose a restricted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity. The approach is interesting and has certain merits. My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand, mainly because of poor English. A substantial revision in this respect would be beneficiary.各位：新的恶战开始了;投往JASA的文章没有被拒,但被批得很凶;尽管如此,审稿人和编辑还是给了我们一个修改和再被审的机会;我们应当珍惜这个机会, 不急不火;我们首先要有个修改的指导思想;大家先看看审稿意见吧;-----邮件原件-----Manuscript 07-04147:Editor's Comments:This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayedabove. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers,each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. Themain points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent acrossthe reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introductionneeds to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you proposeto answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale for selecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focus on how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The results section is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfy the reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhaps consolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readers would take your word that these were nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other work where they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first results as late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by thereviewers about the design. The most notable but not the only problem isthat there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be comparedat nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that atleast floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely tosignificantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listenersare tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance wasextremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-maskerratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the olderlisteners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvagedif you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratiofor the older listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it.I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that itprecludes publication of theolder versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscriptand the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impression comparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensationlevels at which the older and younger groups listened if the target wasfixed at 56 dBA.The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in your lab, and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of datawere differentThere, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is notvarying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviews point out, your conditions present brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target, may change the energetic masking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the same time. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performance substantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very differentthan those when the target is at verylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedence effect, particularly the perception of "echoes" at the longer delays. Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breakingapart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and Parks 1961. To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions. However, it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.I think there are several options for you to consider: 1 If you think itis very important to publish all the data you have right now, you could withdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.2 You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision thatincludes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity ofthe older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you, I don't think this is a promising alternative. 3 You could collect more data onolder listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better.With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such datawere collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, itcould be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision wouldbe sent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that a manuscript even with these new data would be judged favorably by the reviewers. 4 Youcould drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit amuch shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on thenoise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking fromthe data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale forwhat your specific question is about release from masking, why yourconditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worryabout how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. 5 You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider amore straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask witholder listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternativesdescribed will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whateveryou decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully asthey have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improvingthe presentation.Sincerely yours,Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments:Reviewer 1 Evaluations:Reviewer 1 Good Scientific Quality:No. See attachedReviewer 1 Appropriate Journal:YesReviewer 1 Satisfactory English/References:No.Reviewer 1 Tables/Figures Adequate:No.Reviewer 1 Concise:No.Reviewer 1 Appropriate Title and Abstract:No, because the term "interval-target interval" in the title requiredfurther explanation.MS: 07-04147Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informationalmasking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults."This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger andolder listeners, as a function of inter-target interval ITI in two maskerconditions speech masking and noise masker. The same target speech waspresented from two different locations simultaneously in two differentmaskers, one from each location L or R. Results show that release frominformational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners whenthe ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:&x2022; The general impression is that the introduction section isunnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained.&x2022; The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping fromplace to place. For example, the authors spent pages on reverberationand the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-pageto talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.&x2022; In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of thestudy and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentionedthat "the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech fromspeech masking or noise masking." However, they did not explain how and why manipulating ITI can address their questions, questions that were not clearly stated anywhere in the paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation wasgiven regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results in different conditions can answer the questions under investigation.2. Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate and precise:&x2022; Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.&x2022; At the beginning of the result section for both the younger and older groups, the authors should clearly present the number of factors included in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor and which ones were within-subject factors. Main effects and interaction 3-way and 2-way should also be reported clearly.&x2022; Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however, no pvalue was reported.&x2022; The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p= is "marginally significant."&x2022; When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference betweenthe 64 ms ITI and other ITI valuesFor example, in the statement "...thereleaseamount was % under the speech-masking condition,...", do you mean " percentage points"3. Baseline condition is questionable:&x2022; The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking on as"...the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percent difference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identification at the ITI of 64 ms the longest ITI in this study."&x2022; It took me a while to understand what this means, and finally came up with the interpretation if my interpretation is correct of the data for the authors. It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms, the perceived spatial location is between the two maskers spatial separation. But when the ITI was 32and/or 64 ms, listeners heard two images one from each side and there was no spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on either side. Therefore, according to the authors, the release from masking is the performance difference between the ITI conditions when listeners heard onlyone image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditionswhere two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have aproblem with the baseline condition 64 ms ITI in which two images wereperceived. If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delayecho between the two targetsIf so, the poor performance in the 64 mscondition can be partially due to the confusion/disruption induced by theecho in noise conditions in addition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and the masker.4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:&x2022; The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study andclaimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However, readingthe fine details of their hearing thresholds < 45 dB HL between 125 and 4kHz, it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normallimits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hzand mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz see Fig. 1 in thesesubjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results inrelation to the threshold differences between the two groups.&x2022; The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It isnecessary to provide individual threshold data at least for the oldergroup in a table format.5. Language problem:&x2022; I understand that English is not the authors' native language. Itis recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading themanuscript before submission.6. Tables and Figures:&x2022; Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presentedin Fig. 7&x2022; The authors should provide legends in the figures.&x2022; The authors should provide error bars in the graphs in Fig 1.&x2022; It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2&x2022; The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis inFig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data.&x2022; Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in thetext.Specific comments this is by no means a complete list:first par: The quote from Knudsen 1929 is not necessary.first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list ofreferences in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative.last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a targetspeech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the target speech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible, please rewrite.first line, first par. "Masking particularly information masking oftarget speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc tofacilitate his/her selective attention to the targetspeech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence.line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevant information..., therefore may cause more speech-recognition difficulties" This sentence is coming out of the blue without further explanation.p. 8-10. Please explain the terms "inter-loudspeaker interval","inter-masker interval", "inter-target interval" before using them.line 11 "Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantly influenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effectof changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible.line 2 "The 36 young university students all had normal and balanced...." Change "balance" to "symmetrical."p. 12 line 8 "Direct English translations of the sentences are similar butnot identical to the English nonsense sentences that were developed by Helfer 1997 and also used in studies by Freyman et al. 1999, 2001, 2004 and Li et al. 2004." I thought the sentences were created by the authors. So, are they a direct translation from the English version or created by the authorslast par "For the two-source target presentation,...." This came out ofthe blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.line 8 "During a session, the target-speech sounds were presented at a level such that each loudspeaker, playing alone, would produce a sound pressure of 56 dBA." Is this the rms level of speechThe level at 56 dBAseems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listenersgiven that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation levellast line "There were 36 17+1x2 testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32 15+1x2 testing conditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscriptline 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experimentsunder the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from Front Right Or left. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point 2.line 12-13 "A 2 masker type by 15 ITI within-subject ANOVA confirmsthat the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the main effects.line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a"self-masking" effect in noiselast par first line "Specifically, when the SNR was -4 dB, changing theITI absolute value from 64 to 0 ms led to only a small improvement in target-speech intelligibility, and the improvement was similar between the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition." The amount of release from masking in the speech masker condition at -4 dB SNR may be limited by the ceiling effect.line 5 "In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improvedspeech recognition under both the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition..."It is hard to tell if there is a significant difference among the ITIconditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect.line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in older adults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is 16 ms or 32 ms, cues induced by the integrationof leading and lagging target signals were weaker and/or not be well used in older participants." First, the author should take into account the hearing loss in the older group. Second, this conclusion seems somewhat contradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived images of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for oneyounger subject perceived twoseparate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image.2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on earchannel acoustics came out of nowhere.Reviewer 2 Evaluations:Reviewer 2 Good Scientific Quality:Generally yes - see general remarks below.Reviewer 2 Appropriate Journal:YesReviewer 2 Satisfactory English/References:Clarity and conciseness could be improved - see general remarks.The referencing is occasionally excessive, . the 17 references providedto back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, orp28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of these long lists of citations see JASA guidelines.The English is satisfactory, with lots of minor comments see 'detailed comments' belowReviewer 2 Tables/Figures Adequate:The figures would benefit from being redrawn using appropriategraph-plotting software. In their current form, they are quite pixelated.The figures would benefit from a legend, when there are several symbols used on the same graphs.Figure 2 and Figure 3's x-axes should be suitably non-linear, because the points plotted for ITIs between -10 and 10 ms are illegible.Figure 3 is perhaps largely repeats information that is apparent in Figure2. Also, the top panel is perhaps misleading, as the difference between the two conditions could be explained to some degree by a ceiling effect. Theuse of symmetry in Figure 3 should be applied to Figure 2, since we had no reason to expect left-right effects.Tables 1 and 2 should be omitted, since all their information is provided ina Figure.。
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编辑整理：尊敬的读者朋友们：这里是精品文档编辑中心，本文档内容是由我和我的同事精心编辑整理后发布的，发布之前我们对文中内容进行仔细校对，但是难免会有疏漏的地方，但是任然希望（SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板）的内容能够给您的工作和学习带来便利。
同时也真诚的希望收到您的建议和反馈，这将是我们进步的源泉，前进的动力。
本文可编辑可修改，如果觉得对您有帮助请收藏以便随时查阅，最后祝您生活愉快业绩进步，以下为SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板的全部内容。
Dear Editors and Reviewers：Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy”（LANL-2014—0001). 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 review er’s comments are as flowing：Responds to the reviewer’s comments：1. Response to comment （Reviewer 1): （The proposed method was established with the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol。
sci审稿 拒稿语料
sci审稿拒稿语料
非常抱歉地通知您，您的科学论文未能通过我们的审稿过程，因此无法予以发表。
以下是我们评审团给出的拒稿意见：
1. 研究方法不合理或不完善：您的研究方法可能存在缺陷或无法支持您的研究结论。
请重新审视您的研究设计，确保方法正确并具备科学可行性。
2. 数据分析不充分或不准确：审稿人认为您的数据分析方法不够完备或者结果解释不清晰。
请重新检查数据处理过程，并提供更充分和准确的结果解读。
3. 文章组织结构不清晰：审稿人认为您的论文组织结构混乱或者逻辑不清晰，难以理解。
请重新整理您的论文结构，确保逻辑顺畅并使读者易于理解。
4. 缺乏创新或重要性：审稿人认为您的研究结果缺乏创新性，或者对学术界的重要性不足。
请重新考虑您的研究问题和研究结果，确保能够为学界和领域做出实质性贡献。
5. 文章语言表达不精准或含糊：审稿人认为您的文章存在语法错误、表达含糊不清或者句子结构不佳等问题。
请重新审查您的语言表达，确保文章具备清晰、准确和流畅的语言。
希望以上意见对您的进一步改进有所帮助。
如果您有任何疑问或需要更多详细的解释，请随时与我们联系。
再次感谢您选择
我们期刊投稿，希望在未来的研究中能够为您提供支持和合作的机会。
sci编辑邮件模板
sci编辑邮件模板SCI（Science Citation Index）是指科学引文索引，是一个收录全球科技论文的数据库。
SCI编辑则是负责审核和编辑SCI论文投稿的专业人员。
SCI编辑邮件模板则是SCI编辑审稿时用来通知作者论文审核结果的一种标准化邮件模板。
在本文中，我们将为大家详细介绍SCI编辑邮件模板。
一、SCI编辑邮件模板的常用语言SCI编辑邮件模板通常使用正式官方的英文进行写作。
通过邮件头让投稿者知道邮件来自SCI期刊，并且在邮件开头用简单而明了的语言表示审稿意见，例如“Dear author, thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. Unfortunately, we have toreject your article due to the following reasons.”。
需要注意的是，信中不建议使用过于生硬和直白的语言，更不能使用带有侮辱和攻击性的语言进行撰写和表达。
二、SCI编辑邮件模板的基本结构SCI编辑邮件模板的基本结构一般包括：邮件头、称谓、审稿意见、结论、感谢语和署名。
具体讲解如下：1. 邮件头邮件头注明了发件人和接收人的信息，说明发送的邮件的主题或者是投稿的文章编号等信息。
邮件头是让作者明确了解到该邮件来自SCI期刊，从而更好的理解邮件内容。
2. 称谓万事开头难，称谓是邮件的开头，也是邮件意愿表达的一部分。
在SCI编辑邮件模板中，称呼研究者和作者时一般使用"Dear"和"Mr./Ms."等词，显得尊重和礼貌。
3. 审稿意见SCI编辑在审核文章时会针对投稿人的文章，详细阐述其审稿意见，并赞赏或批评作者所写的文章。
审稿人可以使用自己的专业语言，但是要避免使用过于难懂或特殊的学术语言进行表达。
4. 结论在邮件的最后，审稿人一般会对文章进行总结，建议投稿者对其研究进行改进或者重写，以达到SCI期刊的发表标准。
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
Dear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy”(LANL-2014-0001). 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 ma in corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:1. Response to comment (Reviewer 1): (The proposed method was established with the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol. It needs more data to prove the reliability of the method)Response: C onsidering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the experiment of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is added to verify the reliability of the Raman data. Raman paek is a kind of inelastic scattering paek（not absorption peak）, Raman spectrum of the standard xylitol and xylose solutions was uesd to selecte the most appropriate characteristic bands of xylitol and xylose for our experiment based on their comparative strength without overlap with other bands.2. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The literature data(table 1) was used inthis paper, but different shifts and strength would be obtained using different Raman spectrometers, so data shall be carried out according to the experimental results in the support of literature.)Response: different experimental conditions has a great influence on the peak intensity. but little effect on the peak raman shift, This is the basis of the Raman qualitative.3. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The references shows different styles.)Response:The format of the reference has been corrected.4. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): (The medium is a complex mixture and includes yeast extract. Y east extract will contain many of the characteristic Raman peaks that the authors ascribe to the yeast cells.)Response:every sample of yeast cells pallet had been washed twice（suspension and centrifugation）to ensure impurity elimination, in addition , yeast extract is obtained after plasmolysis and complete hydrolase autolyzed, remove the cell wall and insoluble productsaccording to the production process of yeast extract. so the process for purifing the yeast cells pallet is reasonable.5. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): ( The spectral resolution is stated to be 1.2 cm-1; however, the spectra are smoothed....No details of the smoothing algorithm used are provided. This affects the spectral resolution.. )Response:we added the processing methods of Raman spectra in section of Data analysis.6. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): (In Figure 3, the peak at 866 cm-1 .....into xylulose via xylitol as intermediate." (page 7 lines 21 to 32))Response:We try to correct the deficiencies in this passage. We think this is necessary to theoretically verify the Raman consistent with the fact that we know. Also ralate to the discussion on the by-products.8. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): ( It is said that inorganic salt is an important factor for the fermentation process (Page 3, line 36), but there is no discuss or exploration about this)Response: inorganic salt is an important factor for the fermentation process，but the effect of inorganic salt is not the focus of the article，the concentration of inorganic salt is adjusted to the most suitable conditions for this strain according to the reference.9. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): (Figure 4 was used to illustrate the changes of biological macromolecules, but all the Raman peaks here were not clear) Response:Figure in the first draft of the paper has a problem in the export size by Origin8.5，and we have modified the size of resubmitted figure to ensure better view of peak.10. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): (The assignment of bands in table 1 all depended on lectures.)Response:The Raman characteristic bands of biological macromolecular are common-sense conclusion in this field, in fact, almost all articles involved biological Raman bands of Biological macromolecule have direct quoted these conclusions. three examples were list as below :Schuster K C, Urlaub E and Gapes J R. 2000. Single-cell analysis of bacteria by Raman microscopy: spectral information on the chemical composition of cells and on the heterogeneity in a culture. Journal of microbiological methods. 42(1): 29-38.Başar G, Kın S. 2008. Monitoring of spectroscopic changes of a single trapped fission yeast cell by using a Raman tweezers set-up. Optics Communications. 281(19): 4998-5003.Xie C, Li Y. 2003. Confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy of single biological cells using optical trapping and shifted excitation difference techniques. Journal of Applied Physics. 93(5): 2982-2986.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 revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Revie wers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.Y oursSincerelyZhen Huang。
英文SCI论文发表各步英文信模板
英文SCI论文发表各步英文信模板1. 上传或写信或发 E\mail 投递Dear Prof. xxx (Editor):Attached (Enclosed) please find the word or PDF version of my paperentitled "xxx" with the kind request to consider it for publication in the journal xxx.The authors claim that none of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere. Should you receive the paper, please send me a e\mail to confirm receipt of it.Thanks a lot in advance! Sincerely, yours2. 收到中期决定一般情况下，收到编辑部的来信，让作者根据审稿人的意见修改，并且在意见中看到审稿人推荐该文章发表，就成功了一大半。
例：I want to take this opportunity to inform you that Peter will be joining us shortly.He has worked in this field for twelve years and we are delighted that he has decided to join our company at this stage of our development.Dear Mr. xxx,Your manuscript, referenced above, has now been reviewed and the reviewer (s) have made suggestions which the Editor feels would Improve your manuscript.however, a friend of mine introduced me to abc company, and i have decided to accept a post that will give me greater possibilities for promotion and an increase in my salary. i therefore write this memo as formal notice to terminate(终止) my engagement with you one month from todays date.The Editor encourages you to consider these comments and make an appropriate revision of your manuscript. The reviewer (s)‘ comments are below.Please submit your revision online within 4 weeks by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System for the Journal of Applied Psychology.学校名称：美国杜克大学(德汉姆)Duke University (Durham)所在位置：美国，学校设置类型：综合性大学创建时间：1838年学历：语言专科本科研究生网络课程学校性质：私立学生人数：12991人院校地址：2138 Campus Drive Durham, NC 27708 (919) 684-8111The manuscript is now listed under "Submissions Needing Revisions." Click "Revise" when you are ready to submit your revision.The decision was a difficult one for me because I have so enjoyed my working relationships here. The job description has given me great latitude in assisting other coordinators within the human resource area, and as a result, I’ve gained skills in several related fields. These cross-training opportunities have been invaluable, and in a much more formal, classroom setting, I’ve been able to take advantage of classes in management, interpersonal skills, writing, and oral presentations. All of this training has been a worthwhile effort for both AAA (company) and me.Please include a cover letter that addresses the issues raised in the below comments, point by point. You should also include a suitable rebuttal to any specific request for change that has not been made.Thank you, and we look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. With kind regards,3. 修改后再次上传Ms. No.: xxx Title: xxx Corresponding Author: xxx Authors: xxx Dear Editor:My manuscript, referenced above, has been revised according to the reviewer (s)’ comments.I list the modifications as follows:(1).. (2).. (3)... We would like to thank the reviewer (s) for introducing the above literature to us. This isvery helpful to ourfuture study. If there are other errors or further requests, pleasecontact me by e\mail.Sincerely, yours4. 收到最终决Dear Mr. xxx,We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript referenced above has been accepted for publication in the Journal xxx.Many thanks for submitting your fine paper to thexxx. We look forward to receiving additional papers from you in the future.With kind regards, xxx Associate Editor(1)审题准确把握辩题内涵和外延，对所持立场能多层次、多角度理解，论点鲜明，对本方难点能有效处理和化解。
计算机核心刊物(非SCI EI)投稿指南
转:计算机核心刊物(非SCI,EI)投稿指南根据我的经验和了解，我推荐《计算机工程》和《计算机应用研究》两个期刊，审稿快，录用率高，用来救急最理想。
《软件学报》《计算机学报》《计算机研究和发展》《JCST》并称国内四大学报，录取率都相当困难，有时甚至不如把文章翻译为英文投稿到国外的期刊更划算。
1.《小型微型计算机系统》沈阳审稿周期：四个月（不固定）发表周期：一年半（不办理加急业务）审稿费：100元（初审通过后才要求作者寄审稿费，这个要赞一下！）服务态度：极好投稿方式：邮寄打印稿，交付审稿费后可在其主页上查询稿件状态。
华中科技大学一位朋友的经验：******1) 看看小微最近2年的杂志，有没有相关方面的文章，如果没有，中的机会大。
2）参考文献要尽量多引用那些是小微杂志编辑委员会写的文章的。
3）小微要求内容比较新，而且注重实现，要有数据和实现。
4）运气好的1个月就可以中。
******2.《计算机应用》成都审稿周期：三个月（一般两个月左右能知道录用与否）发表周期：半年（我所了解到最快的）审稿费：50元服务态度：较好投稿方式：在其网站上在线投稿对文章的质量要求较高，杂志社工作认真负责，信息反馈较快，送审两个月后基本上都能收到稿件的最终处理结果。
对是否挂基金号与项目编号不是特别看重，比较适合我这样没有基金资助的学生，呵呵。
3.《计算机科学》重庆审稿周期：两个月（快慢不等）发表周期：8个月到一年不等（有时候可以加急发表）无需审稿费服务态度：一般投稿方式：邮寄打印稿，交付审稿费后可在其主页上查询稿件状态。
比较注重较为新颖的文章，如果挂有基金号或者重大项目编号，一周内就能返回录用通知。
在其网站上经常看到有当天收稿，第二天就录用的，估计是被杂志社约稿了，呵呵。
4.《计算机工程》上海审稿周期：两个月发表周期：一年左右（可以加急发表）审稿费：50元服务态度：较好投稿方式：e-mail，可在其网站上留言查询审稿情况最大的优点就是审稿快，一般一个半月就能收到消息，两个月内肯定能收到消息。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
英文期刊审稿之痛
原作者: 王善勇|来自: 丁香园
最近这个假期过得很辛苦，本来自己就有一堆事，又赶上接二连三地收到了
近十篇英文杂志的审稿邀请。我这个人面子比较薄，实在不好意思拉下脸来拒绝
别人。可有些文章，说实话，审起来，真得很头疼，尤其是好几篇来自祖国亲人
们的稿件。这里不是矫情，对于英文写作，虽然我也是从那个阶段走过来的，但
有些话还是要一吐为快，为的是惩前毖后，治病救人。
按理说，英语的教学在神州大地上轰轰烈烈地搞了几十年，经过
几代人的努力，全民族的英文成绩大幅度地提高，这是有目共睹的。十几年前我
在国内读硕士的时候，第一篇英语科技论文，投出去后，被审稿人骂得鼻青脸肿，
改得面目全非。那一刻，一直对自己英语很自负的我才真切地感觉到自己的英语
水平差到什么程度。然而，十几年以后，当我作为审稿人开始改一如当年的我一
样青涩的硕士，博士生的英语论文的时候，令我吃惊的是，我当年写英语论文常
犯的错误，在年轻一代的学生身上并没有明显地改观，说得严重点是有过之而无
不及。
我在香港读博士的时候，认识一个美国的留学生（交流生），这个学
生开始经常受到我们的鄙视。原因有两个，一是这小子英语太好了；二是，这小
子太能写了，屁大一点的事，他能翻来覆去地写，能发好几篇文章。更可气地是，
你还找不出证据批判他“一搞多投”。开始我们这些大陆来的学生不服是可以理
解的，因为我们之前受到的科技论文训练其实都是中文的，更准确地讲是中文的
逻辑。
我们先从一篇文章的摘要说起。摘要，大家都清楚，是要简明扼
要地介绍你这篇文章的背景，方法，具体做了哪些工作和得到了什么结果。无论
中文还是英语要尽量把这几个要素表达清楚就可以了。而我看过很多中文的文章
经常有一些套话，“场面话”，比如说：我们这项研究对土木工程师将有非常重
要的参考价值等等。而我们中国的学生也习惯性地将类似这样的话翻译过来放到
摘要里。每当审这样的英文稿件时，我都会毫不犹豫地把这句话从摘要中删掉。
因为你的研究有没有价值，从你的方法，结果里一眼就能看出来，再加上这句话
完全是画蛇添足。
摘要过后就是引言了，英文叫Introduction。引言是干什么的呢？
通常在引言里要介绍你的研究背景，也就是说为什么要做这项研究，它的必要性
和重要性在哪里？要回答这个问题，当然我们要回顾（review）以前的人们你这
个研究领域做到了什么程度。否则你的研究一查文献别人早做过了，那就没有什
么意义了。这就是科学研究只有第一，没有第二的原因。那么如何review别人
的工作呢？
这里说一个（对年轻学子）似乎不应该说的秘密，说白了，这部分工
作至少逻辑上是要一点点地给自己铺垫。简单地说就是别人做了什么什么工作，
但存在哪些不足，我这篇文章就是要解决这个不足，是一个小小的进步。这里注
意，这种点评要非常小心，你的话批得太“重”，这显然是在“得罪”前辈，没
准审稿人就是你这个要“批”的人。当然说得太“轻”也不行，这会大大降低你
文章的分量。那么该怎么说呢？这里就要讲究分寸，既要击中要害，又要给人留
足面子。再赤裸一点，review以前人的工作也是按照自己文章的“需求”。把
所有相关的文章你都review了，多数情况下，你这篇文章也就不用写了。
这就是文献看太多的弊端-被洗脑了。当然说了这么多，都是在一个
你对你的研究已经有了一个非常全面的掌控的前提下，才能做到如此“灵活”。
而近些年，我审过的很多国内学生的英文文章，最主要的问题是，不会写
Introduction。最常见的情况是一个句子后面敢跟上十到二十个参考文献，根本
做不到对每篇文献做出精准地点评，至于我刚才提到的英文的内在逻辑就更加谈
不上了。
除此以外，我还经常看到Introduction里出现这样的句子：鉴于这项
研究在国外虽然已经很成熟，但在中国研究的人还不多，所以。。。。。。拜托！
你现在投的可是国际期刊啊，谁管你中国到底达到了什么水平？再说中国早就进
WTO了，这是理由吗？
第三部分，Methodology。这一部分，我看过的中国学生的文章，最大
问题是不重视，或根本不懂什么是引用。大家都知道，通常Methodology这部分
会出现很多公式，按照英文写作的规范，凡是你没有给出参考文献的公式，那就
意味着是你的原创。而在很多我们中国学生的脑子里，经常会认为有些公式是
“常识”，没必要都给出参考文献。其实这也是受中文写作的影响。我们自古以
来写文章都崇尚“天下文章一大抄”，对版权，参考文献的引用的意识向来都淡
薄。所以把这个习惯自然而然地也就带到英文写作中了，一旦别人给指出了还会
振振有词地给自己辩护。但别忘了，这种游戏规则是人家制定的，你想玩儿，就
必须遵守，别无他法。
Methodology之后，就是结果的分析和讨论了。说实话，这部分是
我们中国学生做的最差的一个环节。有时候，你分明看到作者做了大量的工作，
并画出了非常漂亮的图表，但你再看看他的分析，通常就是很简单的一句话带过
了（with the wind）。有时候看着这么草率，不负责任的分析，实在让人痛心
疾首。好几次，我都心里说，就凭这几张图，要是我来分析，我来写，我绝不会
投这个档次的杂志，我一定投到本领域最好的杂志！
然而事实就是这样，看着这些理论也好，实验也好的结果，你能想
象得到作者们投入了多少经费，花费了多少心血，但为什么对自己的成果这么漫
不经心呢？看了太多这样的文章以后，你会发现，很多作者不是不想深入分析，
而是不知道如何分析，最后只能一笔带过。这其实是一个自身整体科研素养的问
题。这里给出一个小窍门，如果实在不知道该如何分析，那就做一些比较，跟别
人的工作去比较，找出其中的不同，然后分析为什么有这些不同，将来如何改进。
这样你的英文句子会越写越多，至少看起来会很“丰满”。这个技巧我也是跟香
港那个美国学生学的，相当唬人。
结论部分不提了，跟摘要的问题差不多。这里，我想说说，英文文
章这几部分之间的内在逻辑关系，这也是我们中国学生最不注意的。通常我们中
国学生都是很机械地把这几部分往那里一放，其实写英语文章跟写中文文章一样
也是讲究各段之间的逻辑关系的，这样读起来才能引人入胜，文章才是一个整体，
也能体现一个人的文采。
最后，我想引用一下我硕士导师的导师对我们曾经说过的一句话：
研究生培养，其实很大程度上是培养如何写论文。而如何才能写好论文，是一个
人综合科研素养的体现，并不仅仅是语言问题。