Paper review ----EDCs
Essay Paper和Dissertation的有什么区别
方法/步骤
Paper怎么写? 这个词就太多含义了。 好的,也就是paper一般有两种(跟学术相关的): 第一种是超级学术的论文,通常是由专家写的,在书和期刊上等发表,一般叫做学术论文 Scholarly paper。 第二种是类似essay的,作为学校课程作业的文章和论文,一般叫学期论文Term paper。 学期论文Term paper是学生撰写的研究论文,占很大一部分的成绩。学期论文通常用来描述一 个事件,一个概念,或者认为一个论点。学期论文是写原创作品,详细讨论一个话题,通常都需 要几页打印纸,通常是在一个学期尾交。
Essay大家都熟悉,老师经常让我们写essay,essay就是几千字的小论文,一般来说只有文献 综述和对它的分析,没有独立的数据也没关系,本科生接触的最多的就是essay,essay也是被 包括在paper里面的。Paper一般来说就包括了所有的论文,当然,不包括毕业论文。 Dissertation相对来说字数比较多,一般来说要一万字以上,和essay不同的是,它要有独立的 研究方法和数据分析,相对essay来说,它对作者的要求更高,要完成起来也更加困难。
方法/步骤
Essay怎么写? 它几乎是留学中最常见的一个词之一。
Essay有两个特点: 1.short!短! 2.主要是指学生的课程作业(或者考核作品)啦。 3.是在某主题上写,而不是乱来的。 在国外大学,Essay一般指几千字级别的小论文/课程论文,通常只有文献综述和对文献的批判分 析,可以没有独立的数据和实证(即便有也是简化的)。可以没有完整的数据或文献,也可以只 针对一些著作或观点谈谈自己的想法和见解,可以是批判性的,也可以是赞同的。
Paper Review 写法
2) In abstract, the content has to be clarified.
A) because both Li and 4-parameter Birch-Murnaghan EOSs are based on the four parameters, I think that the auothers need to show what is difference between these two EOSs.
B) I can not understand "when the fitting energy vs. volume points are scattered in a wide scale or have a large number of data to fit". Does it mean that the obtained energy-vs-volume curves are not smoothing? In addition, a large number of data to fit should not be a problem for the application of various EOS. In terms of my experiences, the large number of data is better to fit EOS.
C) Two sentences "Moreover, it is found that Li equation has the best performance among these exponential EOSs with the smallest fitting errors" and "The further comparison of the fitting the pressure vs. volume points shows that Li equation performs as the best one as well among the exponential EOSs." I am feeling very sad for these two sentences. They mean the same sentence.
j. am. chem. soc.的文章类型
j. am. chem. soc.的文章类型在此我假设您是要求写一篇1500-2000字长的文章,这篇文章的主题是有关"j. am. chem. soc."(即"Journal of the American Chemical Society",简称JACS)的文章类型。
遵循您对于文章类型的要求,我将会一步一步回答。
文章类型是指在学术期刊中发表的文章,它们可以涵盖多种主题、研究方法和实验技术。
对于JACS这类顶级化学期刊,其文章类型多种多样。
以下是几种常见的JACS文章类型的介绍:1. Communication(通信):Communication是JACS中最常见的文章类型之一,它通常是对于某一最新研究成果的简短报道。
这类文章通常以简单的结构和语言,直接陈述研究发现,重点在于揭示其重要性和创新之处。
Communication的篇幅通常较短,一般不超过文章的3页。
2. Article(论文):Article是JACS中的一种全文研究论文,是对研究工作的全面描述和解释。
这类文章一般具有较完整的研究结构,包括引言、实验方法、结果与讨论、结论等部分。
Article的篇幅较长,可以超过10页,以便于作者充分呈现他们的研究发现和实验数据。
3. Perspective(展望):Perspective是JACS中的一类综述性文章,旨在对某一领域的最新进展进行总结和评价。
这类文章不仅会回顾过去的研究成果,还会展望未来的发展方向。
Perspective的篇幅通常较长,一般在5-20页之间。
4. Review(综述):Review是一种详尽综述性的文章类型,主要回顾和总结某一领域内的大量研究成果,以系统性的方式评估和综合现有的文献。
这类文章的目的是为读者提供对该领域广泛了解。
Review的篇幅往往很长,可以超过30页。
5. Feature Article(专题文章):Feature Article是JACS中的一类重要文章,它涉及到某一研究领域的深入探讨并提供了新的见解。
带你认识SCI、EI、ISTP、SSCI、INSPEC、SCIE、IEEE、CSCD、CSSCI
【科普贴】带你认识SCI、EI、ISTP、SSCI、INSPEC、SCIE、IEEE、CSCD、CSSCISCI(科学引文索引)、EI(工程索引)、ISTP(科技会议录索引) 是世界著名的三大科技文献检索系统,是国际公认的进行科学统计与科学评价的主要检索工具,其中以SCI最为重要。
SCI《科学引文索引》(Science Citation Index, SCI)是由美国科学信息研究所(ISI)1961年创办出版的引文数据库,其覆盖生命科学、临床医学、物理化学、农业、生物、兽医学、工程技术等方面的综合性检索刊物,尤其能反映自然科学研究的学术水平,是目前国际上三大检索系统中最著名的一种,其中以生命科学及医学、化学、物理所占比例最大,收录范围是当年国际上的重要期刊,尤其是它的引文索引表现出独特的科学参考价值,在学术界占有重要地位。
许多国家和地区均以被SCI收录及引证的论文情况来作为评价学术水平的一个重要指标。
从SCI的严格的选刊原则及严格的专家评审制度来看,它具有一定的客观性,较真实地反映了论文的水平和质量。
根据SCI收录及被引证情况,可以从一个侧面反映学术水平的发展情况。
特别是每年一次的SCI论文排名成了判断一个学校科研水平的一个十分重要的标准。
SCI以《期刊目次》(CurrentContent)作为数据源,目前自然科学数据库有五千多种期刊,其中生命科学辑收录1350种;工程与计算机技术辑收录1030种;临床医学辑收990种;农业、生物环境科学辑收录950种;物理、化学和地球科学辑收录900种期刊。
各种版本收录范围不尽相同:印刷版(SCI) 双月刊3,500种;联机版(SciSearch) 周更新5,600种;光盘版(带文摘)(SCICDE)月更新3,500种(同印刷版);网络版(SCIExpanded) 周更新5,600种(同联机版)。
部分科研工作者将SCI戏称为STUPIDCHINESE IDEA。
journal of hazardous materials 查审稿的状态
journal of hazardous materials 查审稿的状态对于《Journal of Hazardous Materials》审稿的状态,您可以通过以下方式进行查询:1. 登录期刊官网:进入Elsevier官方网站,找到您投稿的期刊,然后点击进入。
2. 进入作者中心:在期刊官网页面,找到“作者中心”或“Author Center”的入口,点击进入。
3. 输入您的用户名和密码:按照提示输入您的作者账号用户名和密码,登录作者中心。
4. 查找您的稿件:在作者中心页面,找到您投稿的稿件,点击进入该稿件的详细页面。
5. 查看审稿状态:在稿件详细页面,您可以看到审稿状态的相关信息。
常见的审稿状态包括:- Submitted to Journal:刚提交的状态- Awaiting Admin Processing:等待管理员处理- With Editor:编辑接收稿件并处理- Reviewer Invited:邀请审稿人- Under Review:审稿中- Required Reviews Completed:审稿结束,等待编辑决定- Decision in Process:编辑正在做出决定- Reject:拒稿- Major Revision:大修- Minor Revision:小修- Accept:接受6. 关注审稿进度:您可以通过作者中心持续关注审稿状态的变化。
需要注意的是,审稿进度可能会因期刊和审稿人的不同而有所差异。
此外,为确保您能及时收到审稿状态的更新通知,请确保您的联系方式(尤其是邮箱)填写正确。
如有需要,您还可以在作者中心设置提醒功能,以便在状态发生变化时收到通知。
PaperReview写法
Paper Review 写法paper review的一般写法一篇Paper Review按照内容可以分为三个部分:1、这篇Paper的概况。
谁写的?在哪儿写的?哪年发表的等等……2、这篇Paper的内容。
3、你对这篇Paper的看法。
详细点来说是这样的:第一部分:文章概况这部分是最为简单和公式化的,内容主要是文章的作者,作者所处的位置,文章的出处:会议论文还是期刊,或者是网上的资料,文章的读者是哪些。
如果有必要,可以在这部分加入对文章整体的简略评价。
第二部分:文章内容这部分也是比较公式化的。
因为每一篇合格的论文都会包含一下的几个部分:1.background 背景2.problem/hypothesis 问题/假设3.solution/argumentation 解决方案/论证4.experimental test/conclusion 实验/结论把每个点用一句话来概括就可以了,要注意的是不必叙述每个细节,把文章的主线理清楚就可以了。
第三部分:你的看法这部分是最为重要的,你的评价应该直接反映该篇文章对你的研究有何意义、文章的强处以及弱处。
你对文章的评价可以分为三层。
最高层的是对文章的内容的评价,例如方法是否新颖,解决的问题是否有意义,所用的实验步骤、实验对象是否合适,结论是否正确。
第二层是关于文章的结构和风格的,如论述的组织是否合理,论证的过程有没有漏洞,文章的段落结构有没有问题等等。
最底层的是关于文章的用词以及语法方面的评价,句子是否通顺,词语是否恰当,有没有更好的表达方式等等。
三层的重要性是递减的,最上面的那一层是最重要的,这应该是你读文章的重点,也应该是你写Review的重点。
关于一些写Review的细节问题,可以查看这篇出自University of Massachusetts Lowell 的文章。
里面列出了一些写Review的该注意的问题,不过比较凌乱。
此外,还有一点是需要注意的。
英文期刊发表评论
英文期刊发表评论As a researcher in the field of English literature, I have always been interested in the process of publishing academic articles in English journals. In this document, I will discuss the key points to consider when writing and submitting a comment for publication in an English journal.First and foremost, it is crucial to choose the right journal for your comment. You should select a journal that is relevant to your research topic and has a good reputation in the academic community. It is important to carefully read the guidelines for authors provided by the journal to ensure that your comment meets the required format and style.When writing your comment, you should start by providing a brief summary of the article you are commenting on. This will help the readers understand the context of your comment and the points you are addressing. It is important to be concise and to the point, focusing on the key aspects of the article that you want to discuss.In your comment, you should provide a critical analysis of the article, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. You should support your arguments with evidence from the article and other relevant sources. It is important to maintain a respectful and professional tone in your comment, even if you disagree with the author's conclusions.When it comes to the language and style of your comment, it is important to use clear and precise language. Avoid using jargon or technical terms that may be difficultfor the readers to understand. It is also important to use proper referencing and citation to acknowledge the sources of your information.After completing your comment, it is important to carefully proofread and edit your work to ensure that it is free from errors and is well-structured. You may also consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to improve the quality of your comment before submission.When submitting your comment to the journal, it is important to follow the submission guidelines provided by the journal. This may include formatting requirements,word limits, and the submission process. It is important to carefully follow these guidelines to increase the chances of your comment being accepted for publication.In conclusion, writing a comment for publication in an English journal requires careful consideration of the journal selection, critical analysis, language and style, and the submission process. By following these key points, you can increase the likelihood of your comment being accepted for publication and contributing to the academic discourse in your field.。
paper查重流程
paper查重流程Checking for plagiarism in academic papers is a crucial step in ensuring the integrity and originality of research. However, the process of conducting a plagiarism check can be quite rigorous and time-consuming. It involves comparing the content of the paper with existing sources to identify any instances of copied text or unoriginal material. This process is essential for upholding academic standards and preventing intellectual theft. 学术论文查重是确保研究的诚实和独创性的重要步骤。
然而,进行查重的过程可能相当严格和耗时。
它涉及将论文内容与现有来源进行比较,以识别任何复制文本或非原创材料的情况。
这个过程对维护学术标准和防止知识盗窃至关重要。
One of the key tools used for checking plagiarism is specialized software that can compare the text of a paper with a vast database of existing content. These software programs can detect similarities between the submitted paper and other sources, highlighting areas that may require further investigation. While these programs are highly effective in flagging potential instances of plagiarism, it is essential for researchers and academic institutions to exercise critical judgment when interpreting the results. 用于查重的关键工具之一是专门的软件,可以将论文文本与大量现有内容的数据库进行比较。
英文杂志审稿流程under review
英文杂志审稿流程under review全文共3篇示例,供读者参考篇1Title: The Review Process of English Magazine: Under ReviewIntroductionPublishing in English magazines is a highly competitive process that involves rigorous peer review to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. In this article, we will delve into the review process of English magazines, specifically focusing on the stage when a manuscript is "under review".Stage 1: SubmissionThe first step in the review process begins with the submission of a manuscript to the English magazine. Authors are required to adhere to the submission guidelines provided by the magazine, which outline the formatting requirements, word count limits, and citation style. Once the manuscript is submitted, it undergoes an initial screening process to ensure it meets the scope and quality standards of the magazine.Stage 2: Assignment to ReviewersAfter passing the initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to expert reviewers who possess knowledge and expertise in the field of study. Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications and experience to provide valuable feedback on the manuscript's originality, methodology, results, and conclusions. The reviewers are given a specific timeframe to evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed feedback to the editors.Stage 3: Review and EvaluationDuring the review process, reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript to assess its significance, validity, and contribution to the existing literature. They may identify areas for improvement, suggest revisions, and provide constructive feedback to help the authors strengthen their arguments and findings. Reviewers also consider ethical considerations, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest, to uphold the integrity of the research.Stage 4: Decision MakingOnce the reviewers have submitted their feedback, the editors of the English magazine review the comments to make an informed decision on the manuscript. Depending on the reviews, editors may choose to accept the manuscript as is,request revisions from the authors, or reject the manuscript if it does not meet the magazine's standards. Authors are typically notified of the decision along with the reviewers' comments to guide them in revising their manuscript.ConclusionThe review process of English magazines is a thorough and transparent process that aims to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. By understanding the stages involved in the review process, authors can navigate the submission and review process with confidence and increase their chances of publication in prestigious English magazines. The stage when a manuscript is "under review" plays a crucial role in shaping the final outcome of the manuscript and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the academic community.篇2Title: Understanding the Under Review Process of English Magazine Manuscript SubmissionIntroductionSubmitting a manuscript to an English magazine for publication is a significant milestone for any researcher or author. However, after submission, the manuscript goes through arigorous review process to ensure quality and relevance before it is accepted for publication. One of the stages in this process is the "under review" stage, where the manuscript is evaluated by expert reviewers. In this article, we will discuss the under review process of English magazine manuscript submission, including its importance, the criteria used for evaluation, and what authors can expect during this stage.Importance of Under Review ProcessThe under review process plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and credibility of English magazines. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on various criteria, such as originality, relevance, methodology, and significance of the research findings. Their feedback helps editors make informed decisions on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript. This process ensures that only high-quality and well-researched articles are published, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in various fields.Criteria for EvaluationDuring the under review stage, reviewers assess the manuscript based on several criteria to determine its suitability for publication. Some of the key criteria include:1. Originality: Reviewers evaluate the uniqueness and novelty of the research presented in the manuscript. They assess whether the research adds new insights to the existing literature and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.2. Relevance: Reviewers consider the relevance of the research topic to the magazine's audience and the broader academic community. They assess whether the research addresses current issues or gaps in the literature and has practical implications.3. Methodology: Reviewers evaluate the research methodology used in the manuscript, including the study design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques. They assess the rigor and validity of the research process and the reliability of the findings.4. Significance: Reviewers assess the significance of the research findings and their implications for theory, practice, or policy. They consider whether the findings have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the field and advance knowledge in the area of study.What to Expect During Under Review StageDuring the under review stage, authors can expect the following:1. Waiting Period: The under review stage can vary in duration, depending on the magazine's editorial process and the availability of reviewers. Authors should be prepared to wait patiently for feedback from the reviewers.2. Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed feedback on the manuscript, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. Authors should carefully consider the feedback and address any concerns raised by the reviewers in their revisions.3. Revisions: In some cases, reviewers may request revisions to the manuscript before it can be accepted for publication. Authors should carefully revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided and submit a revised version for further review.ConclusionThe under review process is an essential stage in the manuscript submission process for English magazines. It ensures that only high-quality and well-researched articles are published, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in various fields. Authors should be prepared for the waiting period, carefullyconsider reviewer feedback, and make revisions as necessary to increase the chances of their manuscript being accepted for publication.篇3Title: Peer Review Process for English Magazines - Under ReviewIntroductionThe peer review process is a critical component of the publication of academic articles in English magazines. It ensures that articles meet high standards of quality and credibility before being accepted for publication. In this document, we will explore the peer review process for English magazines, focusing on the stage of under review.SubmissionThe first step in the peer review process is the submission of an article to an English magazine. Authors typically submit their articles through an online submission system or email. Upon submission, the editorial team assesses the article to ensure it meets the magazine's publishing criteria.Editorial EvaluationAfter the submission, the editorial team evaluates the article to determine its suitability for peer review. This evaluation includes checking for adherence to the magazine's submission guidelines, originality, and relevance to the magazine's scope. If the article passes the initial evaluation, it is sent for peer review.Peer ReviewThe peer review process involves sending the article to experts in the field for evaluation. These peer reviewers assess the article's quality, significance, methodology, and conclusions. They provide feedback to the editorial team on whether the article should be accepted, revised, or rejected. The review process can take several weeks to months, depending on the availability of reviewers.Under ReviewDuring the under review stage, the article is being evaluated by peer reviewers. The editorial team coordinates communication between the authors and the reviewers, ensuring that the review process runs smoothly. Authors may receive feedback from reviewers, which they must address through revisions to their article.RevisionsIf the peer reviewers recommend revisions to the article, the authors are required to make these revisions. Authors must carefully address each comment and suggestion made by the reviewers to improve the quality of their article. Once the revisions are completed, the article is resubmitted for another round of review.DecisionAfter the revisions are made, the article undergoes a final evaluation by the editorial team. Based on the feedback from the peer reviewers and the quality of the revisions, a decision is made on whether to accept or reject the article. The decision may also involve further revisions requested by the reviewers.ConclusionThe peer review process for English magazines plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality and credibility of published articles. The under review stage is an important part of this process, where articles are evaluated by experts in the field. By following a rigorous peer review process, English magazines maintain high standards of academic publishing.。
PaperReview写法
PaperReview写法paper review的一般写法一篇Paper Review按照内容可以分为三个部分:1、这篇Paper的概况。
谁写的?在哪儿写的?哪年发表的等等……2、这篇Paper的内容。
3、你对这篇Paper的看法。
详细点来说是这样的:第一部分:文章概况这部分是最为简单和公式化的,内容主要是文章的作者,作者所处的位置,文章的出处:会议论文还是期刊,或者是网上的资料,文章的读者是哪些。
如果有必要,可以在这部分加入对文章整体的简略评价。
第二部分:文章内容这部分也是比较公式化的。
因为每一篇合格的论文都会包含一下的几个部分:1.background 背景2.problem/hypothesis 问题/假设3.solution/argumentation 解决方案/论证4.experimental test/conclusion 实验/结论把每个点用一句话来概括就可以了,要注意的是不必叙述每个细节,把文章的主线理清楚就可以了。
第三部分:你的看法这部分是最为重要的,你的评价应该直接反映该篇文章对你的研究有何意义、文章的强处以及弱处。
你对文章的评价可以分为三层。
最高层的是对文章的内容的评价,例如方法是否新颖,解决的问题是否有意义,所用的实验步骤、实验对象是否合适,结论是否正确。
第二层是关于文章的结构和风格的,如论述的组织是否合理,论证的过程有没有漏洞,文章的段落结构有没有问题等等。
最底层的是关于文章的用词以及语法方面的评价,句子是否通顺,词语是否恰当,有没有更好的表达方式等等。
三层的重要性是递减的,最上面的那一层是最重要的,这应该是你读文章的重点,也应该是你写Review的重点。
关于一些写Review的细节问题,可以查看这篇出自University of Massachusetts Lowell 的文章。
里面列出了一些写Review的该注意的问题,不过比较凌乱。
此外,还有一点是需要注意的。
写Paper Review要写得批判性,即Critical,可是又不能写成Negative的。
review paper工作标准
给准备学习写paper的同学一些建议最近又有review paper的工作,突然想到把这个工作的标准贴出来应该最能体现怎么写算一个好的paper希望广大同学能从中受益Journal of …Review FormEV ALUA TION[ ] Excellent[ ] Good[ ] Marginal[ ] PoorRECOMMENDATION[ ] Accept as is[ ] Accept if minor revisions are made.[ ] Reconsider after major revisions are made[ ] Meritorious but not appropriate in JCAD[ ] Reject[ ] Resubmit to:ORIGINALITY[ ] Never been done before[ ] Never been done this way before[ ] Minor variation of a known technique.[ ] Re-invention of a known technique.SIGNIFICANCE[ ] Important problem of current interest[ ] Part of a problem of current interest[ ] The solution is a significant contribution[ ] An interesting insight[ ] RecreationalSOUNDNESS[ ] Technically sound[ ] Contains errors of detail (please explain)[ ] Seriously flawed (please explain)DETAIL[ ] Unnecessarily detailed (please explain):[ ] Enough for a graduate student to reproduce the work[ ] Enough for the reviewer to reproduce the work[ ] No-one can reproduce the work (please explain)REFERENCES[ ] Too many references of marginal value[ ] Adequate references[ ] Totally inadequate referencesCOMPREHENSIBILITY[ ] Understood at first reading[ ] Several readings required[ ] It would take a long time to understand this paperPRESENTA TION[ ] Title is not appropriate[ ] Abstract is not appropriate[ ] Poor figures[ ] Paper is too long/short[ ] Rearrangements needed (please explain)DETAILED COMMENTS<Your detailed comments are most important to evaluate the suitability and the technical quality of this paper. Please feel free to use as much space as needed to provide an unbiased and professional assessment on the technical content as well as on the presentation of this paper.>。
怎样写英文论文review(我的笔记)
How to peer review?General ideas1.Don’t share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others. The reviewer shouldmaintain confidentiality.(对所评阅的文章必须保密)2.To provide an honest, critical assessment of the work.To analyze the strengths and weaknesses, provide suggestions for improvement, and clearly state what must be done to raise the level of enthusiasm for the work.(对文章的优缺点做出评论,并明确指出应该怎么修改才能提升现有的文章质量)3.The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial, constructive manner. A carefully wordedreview with appropriate suggestions for revision can be very helpful.(以建设性的、学术性的口吻对文章进行评价,并给出建设性的修改再投递的意见)4.Support your criticisms or praise with concrete reasons that are well laid out and logical.(给出的评价应该附加有支撑观点的具体原因)5.评阅步骤:(1)Read the manuscript carefully from beginning to end before considering the review.Get a complete sense of the scope and novelty.(2)Move to analyzing the paper in detail, providing a summary statement of yourfindings and detailed comments.(3)Use clear reasoning to justify each criticism and highlight good points and weakerpoints.(4)If there are positive aspects of a poor paper, try to find some way of encouraging theauthor while still being clear on the reasons for rejection.(如果被拒绝的文章中有部分闪光点,可以鼓励作者。
paper审稿的几个状态
paper审稿的几个状态摘要:1.审稿状态介绍2.审稿状态详解a.Submittedb.With editorc.Revisedd.Resubmittede.Acceptedf.Rejected正文:在论文发表过程中,作者需要经历一个与审稿人互动的阶段,这个阶段包括几个重要的状态。
了解这些状态有助于作者更好地掌握论文审稿进度和结果。
以下是关于论文审稿状态的详细介绍:1.审稿状态介绍- Submitted:投稿- With editor:与编辑- Revised:修订- Resubmitted:重新提交- Accepted:接受- Rejected:拒绝2.审稿状态详解a.Submitted:投稿- 作者向期刊提交论文后,论文将进入这个状态。
此时,编辑部将对论文进行初步筛选,检查论文格式、字数、图表等是否符合期刊要求。
b.With editor:与编辑- 当论文通过初步筛选后,编辑部会将论文分配给一位合适的审稿人进行审稿。
此时,论文状态将更新为“With editor”。
c.Revised:修订- 审稿人完成审稿后,如果论文需要修改,审稿人会提供修改意见和建议。
作者需要根据审稿意见进行修改,然后重新提交论文。
此时,论文状态将更新为“Revised”。
d.Resubmitted:重新提交- 作者完成修改后,需要重新提交论文。
编辑部将对重新提交的论文进行复核,检查作者是否按照审稿意见进行了修改。
如果修改满意,论文将重新进入审稿流程;如果不满意,论文可能被退回给作者继续修改。
e.Accepted:接受- 如果论文经过审稿后,审稿人给出的意见是正面的,并且作者已经按照意见进行了修改,那么论文很可能会被接受。
此时,论文状态将更新为“Accepted”。
f.Rejected:拒绝- 在极少数情况下,论文可能因为质量问题、不符合期刊要求等原因被拒绝。
此时,论文状态将更新为“Rejected”。
作者可以选择修改后投稿到其他期刊,或者放弃发表。
received status paper under review -回复
received status paper under review -回复"Received Status Paper Under Review: A Step-by-Step Guide"Introduction:Receiving the status paper 'under review' for a research article can bring a mixed bag of emotions for scholars. It is a crucial step in the publication process when experts evaluate the merits and validity of your work. In this article, we will delve into the key steps you can take to navigate this process efficiently. From understanding the review process to effectively responding to reviewer comments, let's explore how to address the 'under review' status with confidence and professionalism.1. Understanding the Review Process:Once your status paper is labeled as 'under review,' it is sent to peers or subject matter experts in your field, known as reviewers. Familiarize yourself with the review process in your specific journal or conference, as it can vary slightly. Typical steps include:a. Initial screening: The editors check if your work aligns with thejournal's scope and guidelines.b. Peer review: Experts critically evaluate your research for its quality, methodology, significance, and other relevant factors.c. Reviewer feedback: The reviewers provide detailed comments, suggestions, and potential revisions to strengthen the manuscript.2. Reviewer Comments: Unpacking Feedback:When you receive the reviewer comments, take a deep breath and approach them objectively. Strive to understand the reviewers' perspective and insights they offer to enhance your work. Some key points to keep in mind:a. Positive feedback: Acknowledge and appreciate any positive comments or affirmation of your research. These can boost confidence.b. Constructive criticism: Embrace suggestions for improvement, even if they may seem harsh. Reviewers aim to help refine and enhance your work.c. Clarification requests: Respond to any questions the reviewers pose regarding methodology, data analysis, or other aspects. Clear up any ambiguities to avoid confusion.d. Addressing concerns: Address any red flags or concerns raised by reviewers promptly. Offering possible solutions or additional evidence can strengthen your manuscript.3. Organizing Your Response: Setting the Stage:Responding to reviewer comments requires a systematic and structured approach, demonstrating your commitment to improving the manuscript. Here's how to organize your response:a. Create a document: Start by creating a separate document where you can address each comment individually.b. Comment identification: Number each comment or suggestion made by the reviewers for easy reference.c. Response formulation: Write a concise and focused response foreach comment, explaining how you plan to address it and any changes you will make accordingly.d. Editing the manuscript: Make the necessary revisions directly in the main document, incorporating the changes discussed in the response.4. Crafting an Effective Response:When crafting your response to reviewer comments, certain strategies can enhance your chances of having your work accepted:a. Be concise and specific: Respond directly to each comment, using clear and concise language to avoid any misinterpretation.b. Provide evidence: Support your responses with additional data, references, or analysis when necessary. This demonstrates your dedication to enhancing the manuscript's quality.c. Be respectful and open-minded: Maintain a professional and polite tone throughout your response, even if you disagree with certain suggestions. Constructive dialogue can lead to mutualunderstanding and an improved manuscript.d. Seek external input: Consider discussing complex questions or suggestions with colleagues or mentors to gain different perspectives before crafting your response.Conclusion:Receiving the status paper 'under review' is an important milestone in the publication process. Understanding the review process, analyzing reviewer comments objectively, and crafting an effective response are key steps to navigate this phase with confidence. Embrace feedback, address concerns promptly, and leverage external input when needed. By following these steps, you can maximize your chances of successfully addressing reviewer comments and inch closer to publication.。
proposal for review papers -回复
proposal for review papers -回复
该主题下的提议。
文章将包含以下内容:
1. 引言:简要介绍什么是回顾性研究论文以及为什么它们在学术界中如此重要。
2. 选题:解释为什么选择了[proposal for review papers]作为主题,并阐明其在当前研究领域中的重要性。
3. 写作步骤:
a. 确定主题范围:解释如何确定特定主题的范围,并说明该步骤的重要性,以确保文章的一致性和全面性。
b. 文献调查:介绍如何进行文献调查,包括使用学术数据库和其他资源,以获取相关论文和资料。
c. 筛选论文:描述如何筛选和选择最相关的论文,并阐述挑选标准,如研究方法、研究对象和研究结果的可靠性。
d. 文章结构:列出回顾性研究论文的常见结构,如引言、方法、结果、讨论和结论,并解释每个部分的作用和内容要点。
e. 关键议题:分析选定主题的关键议题,并说明为何这些议题是重要的,并对各个议题进行详细讨论。
f. 结果总结:总结各个研究论文的主要结果,并评估它们对该领域的贡献。
g. 论文写作:提供一些建议,如何组织和撰写回顾性研究论文。
包括使用合适的引用格式、清晰明了的段落结构和流畅的写作风格等。
4. 结论:总结本文的关键观点,并强调回顾性研究论文对于学术界和研究领域的重要性和影响。
5. 参考文献:列出所有引用的论文和资料。
需要注意的是,由于给定字数限制,每个部分的篇幅可能会有所不同。
此外,根据具体需求,还可以添加其他有关写作回顾性研究论文的步骤或内容。
paper 方法名缩写
paper 方法名缩写(最新版4篇)目录(篇1)1.引言2.paper 方法名缩写的定义和用途3.paper 方法名缩写的规则4.paper 方法名缩写的示例5.总结正文(篇1)1.引言在学术论文写作中,方法名缩写是一种常见的用来表示特定方法或实验的缩写,能够有效地提高论文的阅读效率。
本文将为您介绍如何正确使用 paper 方法名缩写。
2.paper 方法名缩写的定义和用途paper 方法名缩写是指在论文中,将较长的方法名称进行简化,以便于快速查阅和理解。
它主要用于标注实验方法和数据处理方法,帮助读者快速定位和理解相关内容。
3.paper 方法名缩写的规则为了保证缩写的清晰易懂,使用 paper 方法名缩写时需要遵循以下规则:(1)尽量使用首字母缩写,同时避免与已有的缩写冲突。
(2)在首次使用缩写时,需要给出全称,并在括号内注明缩写。
(3)在正文中,可以使用缩写,但需要保持一致。
4.paper 方法名缩写的示例例如,在论文中,我们可以将“高效液相色谱法”缩写为“HPLC”,将“荧光定量聚合酶链反应”缩写为“qPCR”。
在首次使用时,需要表述为:“通过高效液相色谱法(HPLC)检测样品中的成分。
”5.总结总之,paper 方法名缩写是论文写作中提高阅读效率的重要手段。
目录(篇2)1.引言2.paper 方法名缩写的概念和意义3.paper 方法名缩写的规则4.paper 方法名缩写的应用示例5.总结正文(篇2)【引言】在学术论文写作中,方法名的缩写是非常重要的,可以帮助读者快速理解论文的研究方法,同时也能让论文更加简洁明了。
本文将为您介绍如何正确使用 paper 方法名缩写。
【paper 方法名缩写的概念和意义】所谓 paper 方法名缩写,就是在论文中对于某种研究方法或者实验方法的命名进行简化。
这种缩写可以提高论文的阅读效率,使论文更加简洁明了。
【paper 方法名缩写的规则】一般来说,paper 方法名缩写需要遵循以下几个规则:1.保留方法名的首字母,比如“随机对照试验”可以缩写为“RCT”;2.使用符号“-”连接各个单词的首字母,比如“聚类分析”可以缩写为“CA-ANA”;3.如果方法名中包含多个单词,可以保留每个单词的首字母,比如“电子病历系统”可以缩写为“EHR-S”。
英文期刊发表查重
英文期刊发表查重As a Baidu Wenku document creator, I would like to discuss the process of publishing a research paper in an English journal and the importance of checking for plagiarism.When it comes to publishing a research paper in an English journal, one of the crucial steps is to ensure that the content is original and free from plagiarism. Plagiarism, which is the act of using someone else's work without proper acknowledgment, is a serious offense in the academic and scientific community. Therefore, it is essential for researchers to thoroughly check their manuscripts for any instances of plagiarism before submitting them for publication.There are several tools and software available that can help researchers check for plagiarism in their manuscripts. These tools compare the submitted text with a vast database of academic and online content to identify any similarities or matches. Some of the popular plagiarism detection tools include Turnitin, Copyscape, and Grammarly. These tools not only highlight the plagiarized content but also provide detailed reports on the sources of the matched text.In addition to using plagiarism detection tools, researchers can also take certain precautions to avoid unintentional plagiarism. Properly citing and referencing the sources of information used in the research paper is essential. This includes citing direct quotes, paraphrased content, and even ideas or concepts that are not original. By providing accurate and complete citations, researchers can demonstrate their integrity and respect for intellectual property rights.Furthermore, researchers should be aware of the different types of plagiarism, including verbatim plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and self-plagiarism. Verbatim plagiarism involves directly copying someone else's work without quotation marks or proper citation. Mosaic plagiarism, on the other hand, involves mixing and matching phrases or sentences from different sources without proper attribution. Self-plagiarismoccurs when a researcher republishes their own previously published work without acknowledgment.It is important to note that most English journals have strict policies against plagiarism, and any manuscript found to contain plagiarized content is likely to be rejected for publication. In some cases, authors may even face disciplinary actions, such as being banned from submitting to the journal in the future. Therefore, it is in the best interest of researchers to take the necessary steps to ensure that their manuscripts are free from plagiarism before submitting them for publication.In conclusion, the process of publishing a research paper in an English journal requires careful attention to the issue of plagiarism. By using plagiarism detection tools, citing sources properly, and understanding the different types of plagiarism, researchers can avoid the pitfalls of unintentional plagiarism and maintain the integrity of their work. Ultimately, ensuring that a research paper is free from plagiarism is essential for upholding academic standards and contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the scientific community.。
paper审稿的几个状态
paper审稿的几个状态(实用版)目录1.论文审稿的概述2.论文审稿的几个状态3.状态的详细解释4.如何理解和应对不同状态5.总结正文【论文审稿的概述】论文审稿是学术界对论文质量进行把关的重要环节。
一般来说,论文审稿包括初审、复审和终审三个阶段,每个阶段都有相应的审稿人员对论文进行评估。
审稿人员会根据论文的质量、创新性、研究方法、数据分析等方面进行评估,并给出意见和建议。
【论文审稿的几个状态】在论文审稿过程中,作者可能会遇到几种不同的状态,包括:1.接受:意味着论文已经通过了审稿,可以被发表。
2.接受但修订:意味着论文可以被发表,但需要作一些细小修订,以增强文章的可读性或是完整性。
3.再审:意味着论文需要进行一些大幅修改,并需重新提交审稿。
4.拒绝:意味着论文不符合审稿标准或是质量不佳,无法发表。
【状态的详细解释】1.接受:这是最好的状态,意味着你的论文质量很高,且审稿人员对你的研究表示认可。
2.接受但修订:虽然你的论文可以被发表,但还有改进的空间。
你需要根据审稿意见进行细小修订,以提升文章质量。
3.再审:这表示你的论文有很大潜力,但仍需进行大幅改进。
你需要根据审稿意见进行修改,并重新提交审稿。
一旦通过,便可以被发表。
4.拒绝:这是最差的状态,意味着你的论文无法通过审稿,无法被发表。
你需要重新进行研究或是修改论文,并重新提交审稿。
【如何理解和应对不同状态】对于不同的状态,你需要有不同的理解和应对方式。
- 对于“接受”,你需要检查论文是否完全符合审稿要求,并准备发表事宜。
- 对于“接受但修订”,你需要认真阅读审稿意见,并对文章进行细小修订。
- 对于“再审”,你需要仔细研究审稿意见,并进行大幅修改。
同时,你需要在重新提交时,附上你对审稿意见的回应。
- 对于“拒绝”,你需要理解审稿意见,并考虑重新进行研究或是大幅修改论文。
【总结】总的来说,论文审稿状态是论文能否被发表的重要指标。
你需要对不同状态有清晰的理解,并根据状态进行相应的应对。
papers使用教程
papers使用教程Papers 帮助从事科研工作的人,很多时间是花在看文献上。
文献有不同的来源、不同的主题、对自己科研工作的贡献也不一样。
我们经常遇到的问题是,似乎记得曾经下载了某一篇文献,等到要用的时候怎么也想不起放到哪了在Mac电脑上有一个极富特点的文献管理软件Papers,把文献有关的各项活动流畅的组织在一起。
主要功能包括包文献导入、组织、阅读(注释)、自动匹配参考条目、搜索、在文档中插入引用、评点交流等。
今天抽点时间介绍一下如何导入文献,并进行参考条目匹配。
Papers2支持多种文件格式,如pdf,word、txt等,导入的方式是一样的。
以最常见的pdf文件为例,假设你已经下载了一篇论文或多篇论文,有了相应的pdf文件。
最简单的方式是把文件向papers图标上拖放即可。
或者打开Papers ,选择菜单项File--Import--Pdf Files,注意你可以一次导入一篇,也可以选取所在目录下的所有文献。
完成后就可以看到该文献已经加入到papers 文献库中。
该文献的条目一般是根据文件名创建的,我们更希望得到是如论文题目、刊物名称、年、卷、期等这些的引文信息。
这些在过去经常需要自己敲进去,或者从数据库下载参考信息再导进来。
Papers强大之处在于,它可以自动查找相关的引用信息。
当然前提是联网这一功能称为“match”.如何 Match?在刚导入的文献上条目上点右键,出现右键菜单,其中一项是“Match to repository”,就是它了然后进入match界面,Papers可以从许多数据库查找引文信息,例如Google scholar, google books, pubmed,airXiv等。
搜索依据可以是 Doi,标题、作者,...根据搜索结果,选择准确匹配的那一条,点match按钮,于是该文献的引文信息就自动填入了。
在本人使用papers 2时,大多时候Match的没问题,但有时候也不太准,尤其是将搜索结果按相关度排序很不准确不如用按标题排序。
对论文的反思模板英语
Title: [Title of the Research Paper]Introduction:The completion of my research paper on [brief topic of the paper] has provided me with an opportunity to engage deeply with a specific area of study. This reflection aims to critically evaluate the research process, the findings, and the overall impact of the paper. It will alsohighlight areas of strength and weakness, and suggest potential improvements for future work.Body:1. Research Question and Objectives:- My initial research question was [state the research question]. The objectives were to [list the main objectives].- Evaluation: The question was clear and focused, which helped guide the research process effectively.2. Literature Review:- I conducted a comprehensive literature review to understand the existing research on the topic.- Evaluation: The literature review was extensive and covered a wide range of sources, providing a strong foundation for the research.3. Methodology:- The methodology employed was [describe the methodology, e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods].- Evaluation: The chosen methodology was appropriate for the research question, but there were limitations, such as [mention any limitations].4. Data Collection and Analysis:- Data was collected through [describe the data collection methods].- The analysis involved [describe the analysis techniques].- Evaluation: The data collection was thorough, and the analysis was well-structured, but there were instances where the data interpretation could have been more nuanced.5. Findings:- The main findings of the research were [summarize the findings].- Evaluation: The findings were significant and contributed new insights to the field, but they could have been further explored with additional data or analysis.6. Discussion and Conclusion:- The discussion effectively interpreted the findings in the context of the literature.- The conclusion summarized the key points and highlighted the implications of the research.- Evaluation: The discussion was insightful, but the conclusion could have been more concise and directly addressed the research question.7. Strengths:- The paper demonstrated a strong understanding of the subject matter.- The research design was robust, and the analysis was thorough.- The paper was well-organized and clearly written.8. Weaknesses:- The sample size for the study was small, which limited the generalizability of the findings.- The analysis could have been more in-depth, particularly inrelation to [mention specific areas].- The paper could have benefited from a more critical evaluation of the theoretical framework.9. Recommendations for Future Work:- Expand the sample size to increase the generalizability of the findings.- Conduct a more detailed analysis of the data, possibly incorporating additional statistical techniques.- Engage in a more critical analysis of the theoretical framework to deepen the understanding of the research area.Conclusion:In conclusion, the research paper on [brief topic] has been a valuable learning experience. It has allowed me to explore a new area of study and develop research skills. While the paper has its strengths, there are clear areas for improvement. By addressing these weaknesses and following the recommendations for future work, I hope to enhance the quality and impact of my research. This reflection serves as a critical step in my academic journey, as it encourages self-awareness and continuous improvement in my research endeavors.。
- 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)。
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) is a kind of widely-existed micro-contaminants in the Environment that can have adverse impacts on the endocrine system of humans and animals. Currently, the occurrence and increasingly frequent detection of EDCs in water resources around the world is a growing concern. In 2001, the Stockholm Convention under the auspices of United Nation Environmental Program, specified a suite of persistent organic chemicals considered as potential endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment (UNEP, 2001)[1]. A wide range of chemical compounds have been found to be capable of disrupting the endocrine systems since then.For instance, steroid estrogenic compounds are globally detected in river, sea, and their sediments, and even in underground water [2,3,4]. Natural and synthetic estrogens have been reported in US wastewater since the 1960. However, these hormones did not become widely recognized contaminants until their occurrence in wastewater effluents was linked to reproductive impacts in fish. Previous studies also show that municipal sewage is the most important source of EDCs in natural water, so that effective treatment processes are critical for minimizing the concentration of EDCs in the environment. Ozonation is one of the most promising methods, which in this paper we will discuss.Esplugas[5] explained in his review article that advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are appropriate to oxidize EDCs and ozonation gave good expectations to be applied with success in water industry. In his opinion, techniques for treating micro-pollutants are very diverse and frequently one or more treatment techniques are required to degrade these compounds. Conventional process like activated sludgebiological treatment can not completely remove micro-pollutants by itself, so that to achieve target removal goal combined techniques are required, such as filtration, activated carbon adsorption, reverse osmosis, chlorine or ozone oxidation, and membrane technology. Based on previous studies, he also concluded that both dark oxidation method like ozonation and light oxidation processes like UV/H2O2 can remove more than 90% of the most target compounds, while light oxidation seems to be a better option for application because its TOC (total organic carbon, which stands for the overall contaminant concentration) removal efficiency is higher.Nakada developed a combined technique of ozonation and sand filtration with activated sludge that gave efficient removal higher than 80% of most target compounds[6]. Tsuno used a new advanced treatment system to treat EDCs, which consists of biological nutrient removal process combined with reduction of excess sludge by ozonation and phosphorus recovery by crystallization and polishing-up ozonation process[7]. And his results are that general performance is not affected by any additional process, EDCs removal efficiency increased by 90%, and energy consumption reduced by 40%. Nakada and Tsuno both use the activated sludge process in their combined method for EDCs treatment, and they overlook the environment risks of EDCs-containing sludge residual, which is a major concern that Esplugas brought about in his review article.Yue made evaluations of pilot-scale oxidation of several EDCa during drinking water ozonation treatmen[8]. He studied the affecting factors of EDCs removed by ozonation treatment process. His major conclusions are: ozonation effectivelytransformed EDCs with high reaction rate with molecular ozone, and the oxidation efficiencies exceeding95% were observed for these high reaction rate EDCs. Oxidation effic iencies were quite variable for EDCs with low to moderate reaction rate with molecular ozone. He put forward an innovative classification of EDCs based on reaction rate with molecular ozone, which can serve as an important source for future study in this area.To sum up, in these studies, most of the target compounds investigated reacted quickly with ozone, so that ozonation systems are promising for efficient removal of some EDCs. A more thorough research regarding EDCs removed by ozonation is needed before it is applied in water industry and helps reducing the environmental risks of EDCs in natural water.References[1] UNEP. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Stockholm: UnitedNation Environmental Program; 2001.[2] Lai K M, Scrimshaw M D, Lester J N. Prediction of the bioaccumulation factors and bodyburden of natural and synthetic estrogens in aquatic organisms in the river systems. Sci.Total Environ. , 2002, 289: 159-168.[3] Baronti C, Curini R, D’Ascenzo A, et al. Monitoring natural and synthetic estrogens atactivated sludge sewage treatment plants and in a receiving river water. Environ. Sci.Technol., 2000, 34: 5059-5066.[4] Fine D D, Breidenbach G P, Pricec T L, et al. Quantitation of estrogens in ground waterand swine lagoon samples using solid-phase extraction, pentafluorobenzyl/ trimethylsilyl derivatizations and gas chromatography–negative ion chemical ionization tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A , 2003, 1017: 167-185.[5] Santiago Esplugas, Daniele M. Bila, Luiz Gustavo T. Krause, M´arcia Dezotti.Ozonation and advanced oxidation technologies to remove endocrine disruptingchemicals (EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in water effluents. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2007, 149, 631–642.[6] Norihide Nakada, Hiroyuki Shinohara, Ayako Murata, Kentaro Kiri,Satoshi Managaki,Nobuyuki Sato, Hideshige Takada. Removal of selected pharmaceuticals andpersonal care products (PPCPs) and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) during sand filtration and ozonation at a municipal sewage treatment plant.Water Research, 2007, 41, 4373 – 4382.[7] HiroshiTsuno, Kiyomi Arakawa, Yasuhiro Kato, and HideakiNagare. Advanced SewageTreatment with Ozone Under Excess Sludge Reduction, Disinfection and Removalof EDCs. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 2008, 30:238–245[8] Chaoyang Yue,Rajesh Seth,Shahram Tabe,Xiaoming Zhao,Chunyan Hao,PaulYang,LindaSchweitzerand TaherJamal. Evaluation of pilot-scale oxidation of several PPCPs / EDCs (pharmaceuticals and personalcare products/endocrine disrupting compounds) during drinking water ozonation treatment. Water Science and Technology, 2009, 9.5,577-582.。