一些英文审稿意见及回复的
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板尊敬的审稿专家，
非常感谢您对我们的文章进行审阅，并提供宝贵的意见和建议。
我们针对您的意见进行了认真思考和修改。
以下是我们对您每个意见的回复：
意见一：关于标题的修改
回复：非常感谢您对标题的建议。
我们已经对标题进行了修改，以更好地反映文章的内容。
意见二：关于语言表达问题的修改
回复：感谢您指出文章中的语言表达问题。
我们已经重新审视并修改了这些问题，以提高文章的表达清晰度和准确性。
意见三：关于排版整洁美观的建议
回复：非常感谢您对排版提出的建议。
我们已经对文章的排版进行了调整，确保整体呈现更加美观和易读。
意见四：关于文章分节讨论的建议
回复：感谢您对文章分节讨论的建议。
我们已经对文章进行了适当的分节，并调整了段落结构，使得文章更具条理性和连贯性。
意见五：关于论述中的细节完善
回复：非常感谢您对论述中细节的指正。
我们已经仔细检查了每个
细节，并进行了必要的补充和完善，以增强文章的逻辑性和严谨性。
意见六：关于避免使用无关内容和网址链接的建议
回复：感谢您对内容的建议。
我们已经移除了所有无关和网址链接
的内容，以确保文章专注于题目所要求的内容，同时遵守编写规范。
最后，再次感谢您对我们文章的审阅和宝贵的意见。
在您的帮助下，我们对文章进行了全面的改进，并希望这份修订后的稿件能够满足您
的要求。
如果您还有任何其他建议或意见，请随时提出，我们将非常
乐意进一步改进。
最诚挚的问候，
[您的姓名]。
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.。
回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语
回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语English:"Dear Reviewer,Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your feedback is invaluable, providing us with crucial insights and guidance to improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Our responses to your specific points are outlined below. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Once again, thank you for your constructive criticism, and we look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript."中文翻译:"尊敬的审稿人，非常感谢您对我们稿件的深思熟虑和详细的评论。
我们非常感激您为审阅我们的工作所投入的时间和精力。
您的反馈非常宝贵，为我们提供了重要的见解和指导，帮助我们提高论文的质量。
我们已经仔细考虑了您提出的每一条建议，并进行了相应的修改。
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。
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。
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿意见汇总之老阳三干创作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沛.◆ 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、对研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈说结论/夸年夜功效/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/界说概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的界说：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沛地写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 algorithmwith 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（重视水平）：◆ 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（呈现最多的问题）：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 ofthe 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.来自编纂的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greaterdepth 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 onmicromulsion-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力了解的投稿,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,并很快获得发表.其时我作为审稿人之一,除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,因此决意检验考试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿.几经修改和弥补后,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,另外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的缺乏.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—1(1) 英文表达太差,尽管意思年夜致能表达清楚,但文法毛病太多.(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) 该模式的立异性其实不是如作者所述,目前有许多XX采用此模式（如美国地球物理学会）,作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的立异点.(5) 该模式也不是作者所说的那样胜利……(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)审稿意见—2(1) 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—3(1) 作者应着重指出指出自己的贡献.(2) 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析.(3) 需要采纳表格和图件形式展示(数据)资料.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 worthnoticing 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 notgoing 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 aromatic.- Introduction, line 4:notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, however geometry-based (HOMA), magnetic-based (NICS) and electronic-based (SCI, PDI) methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.- Section 3.1, last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2? This 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-2006******** *********************************The 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 Types Corresponding 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,审稿人和编纂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.年夜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 displayed above. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers, each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. The main points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent across the reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introduction needs to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you propose to answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale forselecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focuson how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The resultssection is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfythe reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhapsconsolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readers would take your word thatthesewere nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other workwhere they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first resultsas late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by the reviewers about the design. The most notable (but not the only problem) is that there are no conditions where young and olderlisteners can be compared at nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that at least floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely to significantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listeners are tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance was extremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-masker ratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the older listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvaged if you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratio for 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 it precludes publication of t!heolder versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscript and the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impressioncomparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensation levels at which the older and younger groups listened (if the target was fixed 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 thepatterns of data were different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is not varying 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 performancesubstantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very different than those when the target is at v! erylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength ofthe 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 breaking apart 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 it is very important to publish all the data you have right now, you couldwithdraw 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 that includes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity of the 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 on older listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better. With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such data were collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, it could be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision would be sent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that amanuscript evenwith these newdata would be judged favorably by the reviewers. (4) You could drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit a much shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on the noise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking from the data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale for what your specific question is about release from masking, why your conditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worry about how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. (5) You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider a more straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask with older listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternatives described will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whatever you decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully as they have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improving the presentation.Sincerely yours, Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations:Reviewer #1 (Good Scientific Quality):No. See attached Reviewer #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 thetitle required further explanation.MS#: 07-04147 Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informational masking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults." This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger and older listeners, as a function of inter-target interval (ITI) in two masker conditions (speech masking and noise masker). The same target speech was presented from two different locations simultaneously in two different maskers, one from each location (L or R). Results show that release from informational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners when the ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:• The general impression is that the introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained. • The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping from place to place. For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberation and the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-page to talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.• In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of the study and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentioned that "the present study investigated whether changing theITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech from speech 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 inthe paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation was given 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:• Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.• At the beginning of the result section for both the younger andolder 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. • Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however, no pvalue was reported. • The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p=0.084 is "marginallysignificant."• When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference between the 64 ms ITI and other ITI values? For example, in the statement "...the releaseamount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition,...", do you mean "31.9 percentage points"?3. Baseline condition is questionable:• The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking (on p.19) 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)." • 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, theperceived spatial location is between the two maskers (spatial separation). But when the ITI was 32 and/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 only one image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditions where two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have a problem with the baseline condition (64 ms ITI in which two images were perceived). If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delay (echo) between the two targets? If so, the poor performance in the 64 ms condition can be partially due to theconfusion/disruption induced by the echo in noise conditions inaddition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and themasker.4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:• The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study and claimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However, reading the fine details of their hearing thresholds (< 45 dB HL between 125 and 4k Hz), it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normal limits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hz and mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz (see Fig. 1) in these subjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results in relation to the threshold differences between the two groups.• The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It is necessary to provide individual threshold data (at least for the older group) in a table format.5. Language problem:• I understand that English is not the authors' native language. It is recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading the manuscript before submission.6. Tables and Figures:• Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presented in Fig. 7 • The authors should provide legends in the figures.• The authors should provide error bars in thegraphs in Fig 1. • It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2 • The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis in Fig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data. • Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in the text.Specific comments (this is by no means a complete list):p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen (1929) is not necessary.p.4 first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list of references in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative. p.4 last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a target speech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the targetspeech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible,please rewrite. p.5 first line, first par. "Masking (particularly information masking) of target speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues (perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc) to facilitate his/her selective attention to the target speech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence. p.5 line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevantinformation..., 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.p.11 line 11 "Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantlyinfluenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effect of changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible. p.11 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 but not 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 theauthors?p.13 last par "For the two-source target presentation,...." This came out of the blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.p.15 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 speech? The level at 56 dBA seems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listeners given that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation level? p.15 last line "There were 36 ((17+1)x2) testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32 ((15+1)x2) testingconditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscript? p.16 line 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experiments under the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from? Front? Right? Or left? p.17-27. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point #2. p.23 line 12-13 "A 2 (masker type) by 15 (ITI) within-subject ANOVA confirms that the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the main effects. p.29 line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a "self-masking" effect in noise?p.30 last par first line "Specifically, when the SNR was -4 dB, changing the ITI (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. p.31 line 5 "In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improved speech 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 ITI conditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect. p.31 line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in olderadults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is (16 ms or 32 ms), cues induced by the integration of 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 somewhatcontradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived image(s) of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for one younger subject perceived two separate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image. p.32 2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on ear channel 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, e.g. the 17 references provided to back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, or p28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of。
sci审稿人回复意见
sci审稿人回复意见英文回答：Thank you for your thoughtful review and helpful suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and made the following revisions to our manuscript:1. In the Introduction, we have expanded our discussion of relevant literature to include the studies you suggested. We have also added a more detailed explanation of our research question and its significance in the field.2. In the Methods section, we have provided more information about our data collection and analysis procedures. We have also clarified our inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study participants.3. In the Results section, we have added a table that summarizes the key findings of our study. We have also included additional figures and graphs to illustrate ourresults more clearly.4. In the Discussion section, we have addressed the potential limitations of our study and discussed the implications of our findings for future research. We have also added a more detailed conclusion that summarizes our main findings and their significance.We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive feedback and guidance.中文回答：感谢您提供的周到审阅和宝贵建议。
SCI审稿意见回复模板
精品文档List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). 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 t o the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××......逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are v ery sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s su ggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××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 red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions..。
英文回复审稿人意见模板
英文回复审稿人意见模板Template for Responding to Reviewer Comments in English:Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript titled [Title of Manuscript]. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Below, we have addressed each of your comments and provided explanations or revisions accordingly:1. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].2. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].3. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].We believe that the changes we have made address the concerns raised and improve the quality of the manuscript. Please review the revised version and let us know if any further modifications are required. We are grateful for your thorough review and look forward to your feedback.Thank you once again for your time and expertise.Sincerely,[Your Name].[Your Affiliation].英文审稿人意见回复模板:尊敬的[审稿人姓名]，感谢您抽出时间审阅我们的稿件《[稿件标题]》。
(完整版)一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not 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。
审稿意见回复信英文模板和语料总结
审稿意见回复信英文模板和语料总结[Your Name][Your Address][City, State, ZIP Code][Email Address][Phone Number][Date][Reviewer's Name][Journal Name][Journal Address][City, State, ZIP Code]Dear [Reviewer's Name],2. Abstract: Thank you for pointing out the need to providea brief summary of the main findings in the abstract. I have revised the abstract accordingly, ensuring that it concisely summarizes the key results and implications of the study.4. Methodology: I appreciate your suggestion of including more details on the specific methods and protocols used in the study. In response to this suggestion, I have added a subsection in the methodology section that provides a detailed descriptionof the materials, procedures, and statistical analyses employed in the research.5. Results and Discussion: I am grateful for your constructive feedback on the organization and interpretation of the results. I have carefully restructured the results and discussion sections to ensure a logical flow and to present the findings in a more coherent manner. Additionally, I have revised the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the results, addressing the limitations and potential areas for future research.6. Conclusion: Thank you for pointing out the need for a more concise and focused conclusion. I have revised the conclusion section accordingly, summarizing the main findings and their implications succinctly.7. Language and Style: I appreciate your input regarding the clarity and language usage in the manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, addressing grammar and sentence structure issues, and ensuring that the writing style is concise and coherent.Once again, I would like to thank you for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of my research. I am confident that the revisions I have made have addressed the concerns raised in your reviewadequately. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further clarifications or have additional suggestions.Sincerely,。
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。
英文期刊审稿意见模板
英文期刊审稿意见模板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 sonovel.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, andclause construction.The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of English needs improving.作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊），但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意，就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名信息等就都删除了，以免造成不必要的麻烦！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 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments 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: XXXAffiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXManuscript 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 onmaterials property and therefore only contribution may be innovel 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 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）Reviewer 5Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/AComments to Editor:Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.Name:（国人）Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDear editor:Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX，However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used.The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript: （看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！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 bebetter 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）文案编辑词条B 添加义项?文案，原指放书的桌子，后来指在桌子上写字的人。
英文期刊回复审稿人意见-参考模板4
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments Point 1: First, the third contribution should also include the experimental evaluation of the solution.Response 1: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have added the experimental evaluation of the solution in the contribution section(Lines 64-66, page 2).Point 2: At the end of the related literature, the authors although they mention the shortcomings of the current research landscape, they do not emphasize how their solution addresses them.Response 2: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have added our solution at the end of the related literature(Lines 124-131, page 3).Point 3: The testbed environment used is missing the details of its technical characteristics.Response 3: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have provided more details to describe the experimental environment. According to the model described in section 2.2, we simulate the CPU resources, storage resources, and link bandwidth resources of substrate nodes respectively. According to the service level consensus of Google applications, the reliability requirements of each SSC in the simulation experiment are selected from this set: [95%, 98%, 99%, 99.5%, 99.9%]. The end-to-end delay of an SSC defined in this paper includes the VSF processing delay on the substrate node and the transmission delay on the substrate link. Therefore, we simulate the processing time and transmission time respectively.Point 4: In Figure 6 although QLR-DP is missing compared to the rest of the figures. It should be justified.Response 4: Figure 6(Figure 5 of the first edition) compares the backup performance of four algorithms for a single SSC. As shown in Figure 6, under the same reliability requirement condition, the average number of backup VSFs for a single SSC needed by the QLR-DP algorithm becomes much larger than that of the other three algorithms. It is easy to infer that the total backup cost of QLR-DP algorithm is also much larger than the other three algorithms. Therefore, the total backup cost of QLR-DP algorithm is not shown in Figure 7(Figure 6 of the first edition), and the focus is on the comparison of the three algorithms RD-MaxIncre, SP-MinCost and LARA.Point 5: The authors should add their future plans to prove the extendibility of their solution.Response 5: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have added our future plans in the conclusion section(Lines 372-375, page 15).1。
审稿意见英文回复范文
审稿意见英文回复范文Reviewer Comments and Author Response.Reviewer 1。
Comment 1:The introduction lacks a clear statement of the research question and hypothesis. The authors should revise the introduction to provide a more focused and specific overview of the study.Author Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the introduction to include a more explicit statement of our research question and hypothesis:Revised Introduction:In this study, we investigate the relationship between sleep quality and academic performance in university students. Previous research has shown that sleep deprivation can have a negative impact on cognitive function, including attention, memory, and problem-solving skills (e.g., Pilcher & Walters, 2010). However, the majority of this research has focused on children and adolescents. There is a lack of research on therelationship between sleep quality and academic performance in university students.The purpose of this study is to examine therelationship between sleep quality and academic performance in university students. We hypothesize that there will be a negative correlation between sleep quality and academic performance, such that students who report better sleep quality will have higher GPAs.Comment 2:The methods section is not sufficiently detailed. The authors should provide more information about theparticipants, the measures used, and the procedures followed.Author Response:Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the methods section to provide more detail:Revised Methods:Participants.Participants were 100 university students (50 male, 50 female) who were recruited from a large public universityin the southeastern United States. Participants wereeligible for the study if they were at least 18 years old and currently enrolled in at least one college-level course.Measures.Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a self-report questionnaire thatmeasures sleep quality over the past month. The PSQI has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of sleep quality in university students (e.g., Buysse et al., 1989).Academic performance was assessed using students' self-reported GPAs. Students were asked to report their current GPA on a scale from 0.0 to 4.0.Procedures.Participants were recruited for the study through online advertisements and flyers posted around campus. Interested participants were screened for eligibility and then completed the PSQI and the GPA questionnaire online.Comment 3:The results section is difficult to follow. The authors should reorganize the results and present them in a more logical manner.Author Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the results section to make it more logical and easier to follow:Revised Results:The mean PSQI score for the sample was 6.5 (SD = 3.2), which indicates that the participants had relatively good sleep quality. The mean GPA for the sample was 3.2 (SD =0.5).There was a significant negative correlation between sleep quality and academic performance, such that students who reported better sleep quality had higher GPAs (r = -.25, p < .05). This relationship was consistent across genderand year in school.Comment 4:The discussion section does not adequately discuss the implications of the findings. The authors should expand thediscussion to include a more in-depth discussion of the implications of the findings for students, educators, and policymakers.Author Response:Thank you for your feedback. We have expanded the discussion section to include a more in-depth discussion of the implications of the findings:Revised Discussion:The findings of this study have several implicationsfor students, educators, and policymakers. First, the findings suggest that sleep quality is an important factor in academic performance. Students who get better sleep are more likely to have higher GPAs. This suggests that students should make an effort to get enough sleep, even when they are busy with schoolwork.Second, the findings suggest that educators can play a role in promoting sleep quality among their students. Forexample, educators can encourage students to establish regular sleep schedules, create a relaxing bedtime routine, and avoid caffeine and alcohol before bed.Third, the findings suggest that policymakers should consider the importance of sleep quality when making decisions about educational policies. For example, policymakers could consider implementing policies that allow students to get more sleep, such as later schoolstart times or more flexible class schedules.Reviewer 2。
(完整word版)英文审稿意见
在比较高级别的会议、期刊等，评审系统中包括给编辑的和给作者的评审意见.本文就这两部分评审以及进行汇总第一部分:给作者的审稿意见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 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。
英文回复审稿人话术
英文回复审稿人话术全文共四篇示例，供读者参考第一篇示例：审稿是学术研究中至关重要的一环，而审稿人对于稿件的意见和建议也是非常重要的参考。
在接收审稿人的意见后，作者需要对审稿人的意见进行合理的回复。
在回复审稿人时，作者需要一定的技巧和耐心。
以下是关于英文回复审稿人的一些话术，希望能帮助作者更好地回复审稿人的意见和建议。
1. 对审稿人的意见表示感谢：Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our work.2. 接着，对审稿人提出的问题进行回复：a. 如果同意审稿人的建议：4. 总结回复并再次感谢审稿人：在回复审稿人时，作者应当保持客观、诚恳的态度，愿意听取审稿人的意见并作出合理的改进。
作者也应当对自己的研究有充分的信心，如果对审稿人的建议持有不同意见，也应当理性地进行反驳和解释。
最终，通过双方的沟通和合作，尽可能使稿件更加完善和具有说服力。
第二篇示例：英文回复审稿人话术是科研人员在接收审稿意见后，根据审稿人的建议进行修订并回复的一种重要技能。
通过妥善回复审稿人的意见，不仅可以提高文章的质量和影响力，也可以展现科研人员的专业素养和学术态度。
以下是一些常用的英文回复审稿人话术，供大家参考：1. 感谢审稿人的宝贵建议。
Thank you for your valuable suggestions.2. 我们对审稿人指出的问题进行了仔细的思考和修订。
We have carefully considered and revised the issues pointed out by the reviewer.以上是一些常用的英文回复审稿人话术，希望对科研人员在回复审稿人意见时有所帮助。
审稿意见英文回复范文
审稿意见英文回复范文English: Thank you for your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into carefully reviewing my work. I will take into consideration all of your comments and suggestions to make necessary revisions and improvements to the manuscript. Your insights have provided me with a new perspective on my research, and I believe that incorporating your feedback will significantly enhance the quality of the paper. I will address each of your concerns in detail and ensure that the revised version meets the standards of the journal. Once again, I want to express my gratitude for your thorough review and constructive criticism.中文翻译: 感谢您对我的稿件提供宝贵的反馈意见。
我非常感激您花费时间和精力仔细审阅我的作品。
我将考虑您所有的评论和建议，对稿件进行必要的修改和改进。
您的洞察力为我研究提供了新的视角，我相信融入您的反馈将显著提升论文的质量。
我将详细解决您所关注的每个问题，并确保修订版本符合期刊的标准。
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。
- 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)。
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision 后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/ 夸大成果/ 不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis 的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented 。
6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/ 定义概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume 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 butnot 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 toEnglish grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it the quality of English needs improving. 作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊），但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意，就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email ，文章题名信息等就都删除了，以免造成不必要的麻烦！希望朋友们多评价，其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家！国人一篇文章投Mater. 类知名国际杂志，被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25 分！个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，所以作为审稿人我就给了66 分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60 分小修，66分（我），25 分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25 分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！（括号斜体内容为我注解）Reviewer 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments 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: XXXAffiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript 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 maybe in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly （see Remark 1）. Presentation andwriting is rather poor; there are several statements not supported withdata (for somesee Remarks 2) and even someflaws (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 XXXXXXby 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. Whendiscussing 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 5Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/AComments to Editor:Title （Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.）rof.Name:（国人）Affiliati on: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxDear editor:Thank you for inviting meto evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX ，However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used.The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）1. TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997 年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97 年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈））2. In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 C.（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊）3. Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。