Review Paper-论文评审模板
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.
一些英文审稿意见的模板
最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not 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。
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。
英文论文审稿意见英文版之欧阳术创编
英文论文审稿意见汇总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 experimentsshould 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。
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。
(最新整理)英文评审Review模版
(完整)英文评审Review模版编辑整理：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（(完整)英文评审Review模版）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(完整)英文评审Review模版的全部内容。
This paper presents an equivalent thermal test method for the spacecraft single phase fluid loop radiator，and builds up an experiment system for validation. The work is meaningful to the aerospace industry，but there are some modifications。
(1)The authors represent the equivalent thermal test method is under normal pressure,but the difference to the thermal test between the normal pressure and the environment in the spacecraft is not given. Does the pressure influence the experiment results?The authors had better give some explains;(2)Since the issue is not secretive， the authors had better give the structures ofthe experiment set. If there is some limits， the authors should tell the details instead of the sketch shown in Fig。
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.>。
审稿意见英文范文
审稿意见英文范文Subject: Review of [Paper Title]Dear Editor,I've had the pleasure (well, sort of) of reading the manuscript titled "[Paper Title]" by [Authors]. Here are my thoughts:1. Overall Impression.The paper is like a box of chocolates there are some really good bits, but also a few that leave a bit of a strange taste in your mouth. The topic is quite interesting and relevant in the field. It's like they've chosen a well traveled road but with their own little twists and turns. However, the presentation could use some serious sprucing up.2. Strengths.Novelty: The authors do a decent job of bringing in some new ideas.It's like they've found a new path in a well explored forest. Their proposed method has the potential to be a game changer if it can be fully developed. For example, the way they combine [specific concepts] is quite clever and makes me think, "Hey, why didn't I think of that?"Data: The data they present seems solid. It's like building a house on a fairly stable foundation. They've clearly put in some effort to collect and analyze it, and the statistical analysis seems appropriate. It gives their arguments some real weight.3. Weaknesses.Clarity: This is a biggie. It's like trying to read a map drawn by a drunk pirate. The paper jumps around a lot, and it's not always clear howone section relates to another. For instance, when they move from the theoretical background to the experimental part, it's like a sudden leapinto the unknown. They need to add more signposts to guide the reader through their thought process.Literature Review: It feels a bit skimpy. It's like they've onlyglanced at the books on the top shelf of the library. They need to dig deeper and engage more with the existing literature. There are some important works that they seem to have overlooked, and this makes their contribution seem a bit less significant than it could be.Methodology: There are some holes in their methodology that need patching up. It's like a leaky boat it might still float, but not very well. They need to be more explicit about certain assumptions they've made and how they've controlled for certain variables.4. Recommendations.Rewrite for Clarity: The authors should take a red pen (or the digital equivalent) and go through the paper line by line to make it more coherent. They could start by creating a clear outline and then make sure eachsection follows the logical flow. It's like giving their paper a makeover a much needed one.Expand Literature Review: They need to hit the books (or the online databases) again and do a more comprehensive review. This will not only strengthen their argument but also show that they really understand the context of their work.Tighten Methodology: Plug those holes in the methodology. Be more detailed and precise. It's like fixing the engine of a car it'll make the whole thing run much smoother.In conclusion, the paper has potential, but it needs some serious work before it can be considered for publication. It's like a diamond in the rough with some cutting and polishing, it could shine.Best regards,[Your Name]。
nips2023审稿模板
nips2023审稿模板
尊敬的审稿专家：
感谢您愿意为NIPS 2023会议审稿。
您的专业经验和知识对于确保论文质量和会议的成功至关重要。
为了帮助您进行审稿工作，我们提供以下审稿模板，请您根据您的专业判断填写相关内容。
1. 论文标题：
2. 论文摘要：
3. 引言：
4. 方法：
5. 实验和结果：
6. 讨论：
7. 结论：
8. 实验数据或结果的真实性和可复现性评估：
9. 对论文的整体评价：
10. 有关论文的主要优点和创新性：
11. 有关论文的主要缺点和改进空间：
12. 对论文是否适合本次会议的建议：
13. 对论文作者的建议或意见：
14. 其他评论或建议：
15. 对论文的评分：
- 内容质量：
- 方法创新性：
- 结果和实验：
- 整体贡献：
- 写作质量：
16. 对论文的最终推荐：
- Strong Accept（强烈接受）
- Accept（接受）
- Weak Accept（接受但需要改进）
- Weak Reject（拒绝但可以再次提交）
- Reject（拒绝）
请将您的审稿意见填写在相应的部分，并在评分和推荐部分选择适当的选项。
同时，如果您对论文还有其他建议或意见，也请在最后的评论部分提供。
再次感谢您为NIPS 2023会议的审稿工作做出的贡献。
我们期待收到您宝贵的审稿意见，并将其用于进一步提升会议质量。
祝好！
NIPS 2023程序委员会。
proposal for review papers -回复
proposal for review papers -回复中括号内主题：Proposal for Review Papers文章长度：1500-2000字步骤一：明确回顾论文的目的回顾论文是针对特定领域或主题的一种综述性文章，旨在回顾并总结该领域内的已有研究成果和进展。
因此，首先需要明确回顾论文的目的。
这可以通过以下问题回答来实现：1. 您希望回顾论文的主要目标是什么？2. 您希望梳理的领域或主题具有哪些重要研究方向？3. 您希望回顾论文具有什么样的学术价值或实践意义？步骤二：确定回顾论文的范围和限制回顾论文通常需要有一个明确的范围和限制，以便确保文章的可行性和有效性。
在此步骤中，您可以考虑以下方面：1. 您希望回顾的时间跨度是多久？是否限定在最近的研究成果上还是包括较早的研究？2. 您希望选择的文献资源有哪些特定的要求？例如，是否只包括特定期刊的文章或者包括所有相关的文献？3. 您是否会对回顾论文进行地理或文化上的限制？步骤三：确定回顾论文的结构和内容回顾论文通常应该有一个清晰的结构和有条理的内容。
在这一步骤中，您可以思考以下几点：1. 回顾论文的主要章节应包含哪些内容？例如，引言、方法、结果、讨论等。
2. 您计划如何组织和分类已有的研究成果？3. 您是否打算在每个章节中包含子小节以便更好地展示研究成果？步骤四：确定回顾论文的方法和数据收集回顾论文通常基于已经发表的研究成果，所以数据收集是至关重要的一步。
在这一步骤中，您可以考虑以下几个问题：1. 您将如何收集已有的研究文献？是否使用文献数据库或其他相关资源？2. 您将如何筛选和评估已有研究的质量和可信度？3. 您是否计划使用定量或定性方法，或者两者兼有，来进行数据分析？步骤五：确定回顾论文的撰写和编辑计划最后一步是确定回顾论文的撰写和编辑计划，以确保论文具有良好的结构和流畅性。
在这一步骤中，您可以思考以下几个问题：1. 您计划在撰写回顾论文时采用什么样的写作风格和语言？2. 您何时开始撰写论文？是否有明确的时间表和截止日期？3. 您是否计划请同事或导师阅读并提供反馈，以便进行修订和编辑？通过回答上述问题，您将逐步明确并规划好回顾论文的各个方面，确保论文能够充分体现出您预期的目标和要求。
英语作文互批互评模板
英语作文互批互评模板Peer Review Template for English Essays。
Introduction:The introduction should provide a brief overview of the essay being reviewed. It should include the title of the essay, the author's name, and a summary of the main points or arguments presented in the essay.Thesis Statement:The thesis statement should be clear and concise, and it should accurately reflect the main argument or purpose of the essay. It should be located in the introduction and should guide the reader through the rest of the essay.Organization and Structure:The essay should be well-organized and structured in a logical manner. Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence, and the overall flow of the essay should be smooth and coherent. Transitions between paragraphs and sections should be effective in guiding the reader through the essay.Content and Analysis:The content of the essay should be relevant, accurate, and well-supported by evidence. The author should demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and provide insightful analysis and interpretation. Any claims or arguments made should be backed up with evidence and examples.Clarity and Style:The writing style should be clear, concise, and engaging. The author should use appropriate language and tone for the intended audience, and avoid jargon or overly complex language. The essay should be free of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.Conclusion:The conclusion should effectively summarize the main points of the essay and reiterate the thesis statement. It should leave a lasting impression on the reader and provide a sense of closure to the essay.Overall Evaluation:Provide an overall evaluation of the essay, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. Offer constructive feedback on how the essay could be improved, and provide specific examples to support your critique.Conclusion:In conclusion, the peer review template for English essays is a valuable tool for providing constructive feedback to authors. By following this template, reviewers can effectively evaluate the content, organization, and style of an essay, and offer meaningful suggestions for improvement. This template can help both authors and reviewers to enhance the quality of their writing and ultimately produce more effective and impactful essays.。
英文论文审稿意见范文
This paper addresses an important and interesting problem-automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo. The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts. Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts. The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo.Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved:(1)The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paper in Section 1.(2)In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain a value very close to on GACS ifall its accounts have entirely copied their own texts, images or contact information”. However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not considered when computing GACS.(3)In Algorithm 1 on Pg. 17, it seems that “t=t+1” should be added after line 6.(4)I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in Section 9.(5)There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.。
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿意见汇总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 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 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 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.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 Biomaterials.◆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' 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。
外审论文评阅意见模板
外审论文评阅意见模板http多线程断点续传下载软件的设计与开发研究基于多线程技术的下载软件，提高了下载软件的下载能力。
论文研究了多线程断点续传下载软件的设计与实现，选题明确，具有很高的应用价值。
论文研究了多线程技术，HTTP协议分析与断点续传技术，针对软件系统进行了需求分析，总体设计。
在设计中，重点对文件分段进行了分析，下载功能的设计。
对断点续传软件的开发中的多个重点问题进行了探讨。
给出了详细的分析设计和实现过程。
论文的工作在技术上有一定难度和新颖性。
论文结构严谨，逻辑严密，体现了该同学比较扎实的专业基础知识和较强的动手能力。
论文达到优秀水平。
华夏学院毕业设计管理系统的设计与实现研究基于Java Web的高校毕业论文管理系统。
论文对高校毕业论文包括选题、指导老师管理和学生管理进行了需求分析，并且在此基础上进行了分析和设计。
对Java Web开发的主要技术进行了分析和选择。
本人系天天论文网就职11年的资深论文编辑；工作中与各大医学期刊杂志社进行学术交流过程中建立了稳定的编辑朋友圈，系多家医学杂志社的特约编辑，常年为医学期刊杂志供稿，负责天天论文网医学论文·分检·编校·推送·指导等工作！工作企鹅1:1550116010工作企鹅2：766085044论文的选题具有实用价值，但是对系统的分析不够明确清晰，没有使用到前面部分提到的SSH技术。
论文结构不够合理，不推荐作为优秀论文。
武汉供电企业事务管理系统的设计与开发研究了一个基于Web的事务管理系统。
论文对企业事务管理系统进行了可行性分析、概要设计、详细设计、编码和测试的完整的软件工程。
对采用的技术进行了比较详细的分析与比较。
论文的选题具有应用价值，但是对系统的分析不够清晰明确，没有采用比较新的技术，缺乏创新点。
不推荐该文作为优秀论文。
基于ASP的华夏书城的设计与开发研究了一个B2C的网上商城的设计与开发流程。
论文对网上商城进行了需求分析。
论文评语页范例
指导教师签字
等 级
论文评阅人意见
论文（设计）题目
《浮士德博士的悲剧》中的人文主义
作者
评阅人
评阅人职称
意见
本论文分析了马洛的代表剧作《浮士德博士的悲剧》.通过对剧作中主人公浮士德博士的深入分析，论文作者向读者揭示出尽管这是一出悲剧，但作品中清晰地传递出了人文主义的声音，使其成为文艺复兴时期具有浓重时代特色的一部作品.
论文选题比较合理，论据较为充分,论证过程严谨,语言自然、流畅，符合学士学位论文要求，是一篇合格的学士学位毕业论文。
评阅人
签字
评阅意见
指导教师评语页
论文（设计）题目
《飘》对21世纪女性的启示
作 者
指导教师
赵丽敏
职 称
讲师
指
导
教
师
评
语
本论文以《飘》为文本分析对象，聚焦于其中的两位女主人公.着重分析了她们二人在面对自己人生中的重大逆境之时是如何不屈不挠，摆脱困境的。论文成功向读者展示了女性自强自立的重要性，对于当下女性主义运动具有一定的现实意义.
论文选题比较新颖,论据充分，论证条理清晰，过程严谨,语言自然、流畅,符合学士学位论文要求，是一篇合格的学士学位毕业论文。
评阅人
签字
评阅意见
指导教师评语页
论文(设计）题目
浅析奥斯卡·王尔德童话的特点
作 者
指导教师
赵丽敏
职 称
讲师
指
导
教
师
评
语
本论文选取了奥斯卡·王尔德的童话故事作为分析对象。以文本细读为突破口，详细地分析了王尔德比较有代表性的一些童话作品。在分析中向读者揭示出其童话作品的主题特色和艺术特点。有助于读者更好地欣赏王尔德的童话故事。
英文论文审稿意见范文
英文论文审稿意见范文This paper addresses an important and interesting problem -automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo. The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts. Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts. The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo. Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved:(1) The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paperin Section 1.(2) In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain avalue very close to on GACS if all its accounts have entirely copiedtheir own texts, images or contact information”. However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not consideredwhen computing GACS.(3) In Algorithm 1 on Pg. 17, it seems that “t=t+1” sh ould be addedafter line 6.(4) I suggest that the limitation of this work should bediscussed inSection 9.(5) There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.。