审稿注意事项及意见模板.

如何正确审稿
1、不要因为写作水平差就随便拒稿。

2、不要故意写作者没有做什么实验或模拟而拒稿。

很多人做研究时，都喜欢把问题简化，尽量减少干扰因素。

只要作者针对某个因素进行了透彻的研究，千万不能因为没有考虑某些方面而拒稿。

比如做材料研究时，由于很多材料非球形，但做数值模拟时为了简化，将材料作为球形来研究，只要利用球形得到的结果真实，有新意，就接受。

在审稿意见里建议作者继续做非球形材料。

3、炒冷饭的一定要拒稿。

为了文章数量，将自己很多发表了的论文加以整理，没有任何新的工作的稿子一定要坚持拒稿。

4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。

5、不能因为反对自己的观点而拒稿。

模板：审稿意见
The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:
1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.
2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.
3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research".
一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：
（1）简要描述论文研究内容和意义，并作出评价。

对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。

文章的不
足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

如何审稿
评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。

认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，学习他人如何审稿。

比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角。

对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见。

做好审稿工作要对同行要有绝对的责任感，通过同行评阅认定高水准文献，对科学进步至关重要。

审稿的质量会影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为。

审稿人面临的挑战是，要发现那些作者本人没有发现的东西。

这需要对文献有全面掌握，既熟悉进展，又熟悉经典。

当然，审稿人也会碰到自己不熟悉的知识点，这时可以向他人请教、学习，或者谢绝审稿，请编辑另找他人。

做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到同行的认可。

令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量。

但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够增加作者的知识，提高作者从事和报道科学研究的能力。

审稿时应该对工作充满耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，又不能“放水”。

要提出明确的建议，并有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；。

在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，需要反复斟酌。

不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够。

1．接受审稿邀请
对于自己感兴趣的题目，研究工作在自己的专业技能之内，而且又能拿出时间认真审阅时，可考虑接受邀请。

对于自己不熟悉的专业领域，应果断拒绝。

只要你说明拒绝的理由，编辑不会认为你对审稿不感兴趣。

2．阅读和评价
先花点时间看看摘要，初步了解在实验设计、方法、结果和结论中，你需要看的重点是什么，特别要看出作者认为其工作的重点是什么。

提出一个宽泛的问题，带着问题去看全文：例如，这是一篇关于方法学的论文、是病例总结还是病例报道?与以往的论文相比，本文的新意是什么?
然后再仔细阅读全文，要看懂；遇到看不懂的地方，要分析原因，是科学问题令人困惑，还是作者没有讲清楚。

不合逻辑或有悖于常识的科学问题包括：互相矛盾、结论无根据、因果关系（归因）不当、不恰当推论、循环推理、纠缠于琐碎问题等。

至于写作问题，有的是不会写或写不好，对此应明确提出让作者修改，例如冗余、跑题、术语不解释、用词不准确、专业术语不规范、缩略语不规范。

行文要求条理清楚，让读者跟着自己的思路走。

更重要的是要看实验设计是否交待清楚，研究的逻辑性结构包括目的、假说、假说的可验性预测、结论等是否完善。

重要问题不应不予以交代，例如方法学上的局限性，本研究结果与其他研究结果的不一致性或一致性等，都需在讨论部分予以说明。

论文中还会经常碰到一些“低级“的过失误差，例如百分比加起来不是100，数字前后不一致等，这些往往很容易逃过审稿人的眼睛！
读完第一遍后，不要急于下结论。

继续阅读第二遍，再对稿件做出评价。

首先评价稿件的科学性，看其科学性是否正确，特别是推论（论证）的质量、科理和知识的运用。

是应用性研究还是基础性研究，要考虑对本刊读者是否适宜。

其次要评价稿件的写作情况，表达是否清晰、准确、完整；审稿人看起来都费劲，何况其他读者?当然不同作者的写作风格可有不同，也不必千篇一律。

看完后要尝试提出建议了。

给编辑的建议要反映出：（1）对稿件最终处理意见的初步看法，即接受还是退稿；（2）在做出上述决定之前，你认为需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇论文探讨的问题是令人关注的课题，想法也令人很感兴趣，但其科学性不够强，那么你就要提出如何改进其科学性的建议。

你可以提出正反两方面的看法，供编辑决定是否录用时参考。

决定是否接受还要考虑到期刊的发表率。

在很多情况下，审稿人的建议是“待定”，等待作者对提出的问题给予答复。

对于可能存在严重缺点的稿件，要特别注意给作者答复的机会；有时他们会很快将问题解决，有时问题并不一定能解决。

3．撰写审稿意见
给编者的话（致编辑）包括3个部分，文字要精炼，一般不超过三百字：（1）概要，用三四句话说明研究的主题、基本方法、主要发现，解读（释义）作者的主要结论。

这对于梳理审稿人的思路很重要，同时也让编辑能够更好地了解以下2部分提出的意见。

（2）主要评价和问题。

（3）建议，例如：本文提出了什么新
的观点、有何新的发现、值得进一步修改，等等。

给作者的意见（致作者）要更加具体，字数更多一些。

基本原则是，审稿人发现的问题，必须对作者说清楚；不要给予表扬，因为稿件能被接受，作者就够高兴的了；避免指责，每一篇投稿都是同行长期工作的成果，这完全没有必要。

给作者的意见同样包括3个部分。

（1）概要同“致编辑”，作者可以获悉审稿人从其论文中看到了什么，有些可能是作者自己都想不到的，这有助于作者突出重点，如何准备回复或修改。

（2）主要评价和问题：逐条书写，要解释清楚，要有依据；不要只给予“定性”的陈述，例如不要笼统地说“对照组不恰当，”要具体指出问题和理由。

对于写作上的问题，审稿人有时也许会感到“生气”：文章没写好就投稿，太不礼貌了（甚至会说，太不严谨了）。

遇到写作问题，审稿人可具体罗列主要的几条，并提出修改建议。

对于实在太差的，要明确告诉作者请其上级（导师）或有经验的同事帮着修改。

（3）次要问题，例如冗余、符号使用不当、错别字等，审稿人一般会笼统地提及需要修改，但如果能按页码和分行逐一列出，作者肯定会对你的严谨态度和责任感表示敬佩。

审稿意见的一些套话
1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revisions are list below.
2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as –
4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.
5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of –because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.
8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.
10. The condition of incubation is poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?
以下是关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。

12点无轻重主次之分。

每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。

1、目标和结果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical 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rational:
Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.
4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：
The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.
5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：
A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：
What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?
7、对研究问题的定义：
Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem
8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.
9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:
There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.
10、严谨度问题：
MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.
11、格式（重视程度）：
In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.
Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.
12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.
As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.
The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.
Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?
the quality of English needs improving.
国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志，被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！（括号斜体内容为我注解）
Reviewer 4
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25
Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.
Name: XXX
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。

" it has been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form.
1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but:
- the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）
- it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
- it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).
（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）
2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors
- state that XXXXX
- state that XXXX
- This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size?（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）
3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write "XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates!（研究了什么）
4.英语写作要提高（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）
Reviewer 5
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A
Comments to Editor:
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.
Name:（国人）
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx
Dear editor:
Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In t his paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX，However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used.
The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）
1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈））
2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 ?C.（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊）
3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。

However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particle size?
（作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）
4. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?（虫子们自己注意）
5. XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure. It is obvious that these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了）。