Comments--审稿意见参考
审稿意见范例
审稿意见范例
尊敬的作者：
感谢您提交的论文。
经过仔细阅读，我对您的研究工作有了一定的了解。
以下是我对您的论文的一些审稿意见：
1. 研究背景和意义：您在引言中清晰地阐述了研究的背景和意义，但是可以进一步强调该研究对于相关领域的贡献和潜在影响。
2. 方法和结果：您的方法部分描述了研究的设计和实验过程，结果部分呈现了相应的数据和分析。
需要确保方法的合理性和结果的有效性，可以考虑增加一些方法的细节和结果的解释。
3. 讨论和结论：在讨论部分，您对结果进行了解释和分析，但可以进一步讨论结果与已有研究的关系，以及对未来研究的启示。
结论部分需要更加简洁和明确。
4. 语言和排版：论文的语言需要进行进一步的润色，目前存在一些语法和表达上的问题。
此外，排版方面也需要注意一致性和整洁性。
您的论文具有一定的研究价值，但需要在上述几个方面进行改进和完善。
希望您能够认真考虑我的建议，并对论文进行相应的修改。
如果您有任何疑问或需要进一步讨论，请随时与我联系。
祝好！
审稿人：[姓名]
日期：[具体日期]。
审稿意见范文
审稿意见范文
尊敬的作者：
首先，感谢您对我们期刊的投稿。
我们认真审阅了您的稿件，并提出了一些修改意见，希望对您的文章有所帮助。
1. 内容方面。
您的文章在阐述问题的过程中，缺乏一些具体的案例或数据来支撑观点，这样会使得文章的论证不够有说服力。
我们建议您在文章中增加一些相关的案例或数据，以加强论证的有效性。
另外，在文章的结构安排上，建议您对每个段落的逻辑关系进行重新梳理，确保文章的结构清晰，层次分明，便于读者理解和接受。
2. 语言表达。
在语言表达方面，您的文章存在一些词语搭配不够准确，表达不够精准的问题。
我们建议您在修改时，对文章进行逐句逐词的审
查，确保表达的准确性和精炼度。
另外，文章中存在一些语法错误和表达不够流畅的地方，建议您在修改时注意语言的规范性和流畅性，以提升文章的整体质量。
3. 总体印象。
总体来看，您的文章在某些方面已经有了一定的深度和思考，但在论证和语言表达方面还有待加强。
我们鼓励您对文章进行认真的修改和调整，相信在您的努力下，这篇文章一定能够达到我们期刊的发表标准。
再次感谢您对我们期刊的支持，期待您的修改稿。
祝好！
此致。
编辑部。
会议论文审稿意见
审稿人1：> *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?The presentation of this paper should be improved. The experiment shows that, secrecy rate is almost the same as traditional method and what is the promotion of using NN to relay selection. Beside, the efficiency of this scheme is not clearly demonstrated.> *** Recommended changes:The authors should complete the experiment by adding the computation costs. The references are old, latest advancement of this issue should be mentioned. The authors may put more words on the meaning of introducing NN to relay selection, because, the experiment result is not that elegant.弱势方面：应该改进本文的介绍。
实验表明，保密率与传统方法几乎相同，推广使用NN进行中继选择的动机是什么。
此外，该模型的有效性尚未明确证明。
推荐的更改：1)作者应该通过添加计算成本来完成实验。
2)参考文献陈旧，应提及此问题的最新进展。
3)作者可能会更多地谈及将NN引入中继选择的意义，因为实验结果并不那么优雅。
中文期刊审稿意见模板
中文期刊审稿意见模板
根据对您提交的稿件的审阅意见，我认为您的研究工作具有一定的学术价值，并符合本期刊的发表标准。
但是，在一些方面还需要进行改进和完善。
具体意见如下：
1. 在文献综述部分，建议再增加一些相关最新的研究成果，并对现有文献进行更深入的分析和综合。
2. 在研究方法部分，需要更详细地描述实验设计和数据处理的过程，以确保读者对实验过程的了解和信服。
3. 结果部分需要更清晰地呈现实验数据，并进行充分的分析。
4. 在讨论部分，需要对实验结果进行全面深入的分析，并与前人研究进行对比，提出具有创新性的见解。
5. 最后，在语言表达和文字组织方面，建议进行一些细节上的修改和修饰，以提高整体的可读性和表达效果。
总体来说，您的稿件还有一定的修改和完善空间。
希望您能认真对待审稿意见，并在修改后重新提交。
感谢您选择本刊，并期待您的再次投稿。
祝您在学术研究上取得更大的突破！。
审稿意见范文
审稿意见范文
《审稿意见范文》
尊敬的作者：
感谢您将您的研究/论文提交给我们的期刊，我们非常重视您
的投稿。
经过我们的专家评审团队的审阅，我们很高兴地向您反馈一些审稿意见。
首先，您的研究问题和选题非常具有研究价值，对于相关领域具有一定的启发作用。
您的论证过程清晰，逻辑严谨，结构完整，符合学术论文的撰写要求。
然而，在审阅过程中我们也发现了一些问题。
首先，在文献综述部分，您的引用有些不够严谨，需要增加更多的相关文献支撑您的研究观点。
其次，在方法和数据分析部分，一些细节还需要更加清晰地描述，以确保读者能够理解您的研究设计和分析过程。
最后，在结论部分，需要详细总结研究结果并提出具体的建议，以增强文章的学术价值和实践意义。
基于上述意见，我们希望您能够认真考虑并对您的稿件进行修改。
我们期待您的修订版本，并希望您能够在修改稿件的过程中充分地反思和完善您的研究成果。
我们也非常愿意与您合作，以确保您的研究成果能够最终发表在我们的期刊上。
最后，我们真诚地感谢您选择我们的期刊发表您的研究成果。
我们期待能够再次收到您的稿件，与您共同推动学术研究的发
展。
祝好！
编辑部敬上。
完整版审稿意见模板大全最全
The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis.It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs verysignificant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:1.The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.2.For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and itis strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.3.The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research".4.On Section 1:•This secti on listed many refere nces that are mai niy related to rotor dyn amics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.-Review on the directly releva nt refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-freque ncy and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration.•A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful.5.On Section 2:•Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former.•Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed.•The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms.6.On Sections 3 and 4:The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs.7.On Section 5:The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods.•n fact, it is po ssible to in ter pret most of the phenomena in the time-freque ncy planes using rotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearlyhorizontal lines in the phase planes.•Some of the p aragra phs are too long.8.The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research.Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how the time-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig.The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider: In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered at t=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain!What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency techniques from the literature?Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text. 以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。
英文审稿意见模板
英文审稿意见模板Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled [Title of the Manuscript]. We appreciate your time and effort in providing us with valuable feedback. Your comments and suggestions have greatly helped to improve the quality of our work. We are grateful for your expertise in this field and for the constructive criticism you have provided.We have carefully considered all of your comments and have made the necessary revisions to address each of the concerns raised. Below, we summarize the changes we have made in response to your suggestions:1. [Comment 1]: In response to this comment, we have revised our introduction to provide a clearer context for our study. We have also included additional references to support the background information and clarify the research gap.2. [Comment 2]: We agree with your suggestion to expand the methodology section. We have provided additional details on the experimental setup, data collection, and analysis techniques used. This should provide a more comprehensive understanding of our research methodology.3. [Comment 3]: Thank you for pointing out this error in our results section. We have carefully reviewed our data and made the necessary corrections. The updated results now accurately reflect our findings.4. [Comment 4]: We appreciate your suggestion to include a discussion on the limitations of our study. We have added a new section to the manuscript that discusses the possible limitations of our methodology and potential areas for future research.Overall, we believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript. We are confident that the updated version meets the requirements for publication.Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your thorough review of our manuscript and for providing us with valuable feedback. We believe that your expertise has greatly contributed to the overall improvement of our work.Thank you once again for your time and for considering our manuscript for publication. We look forward to your final decision. Sincerely,[Your Name][Your Affiliation][Contact Information]。
(完整版)审稿意见模板大全,最新,最全
_______________________________________The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is awell-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research".4. On Section 1:· This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.· Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration.· A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful.5. On Section 2:· Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former.· Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed.· The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms.6. On Sections 3 and 4:The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs.7. On Section 5:· The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in thetime-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods.· In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes usingrotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes.· Some of the paragraphs are too long.8. The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research.Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how the time-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig.The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider:In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered at t=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain!What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency techniques from the literature?Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text.以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。
审稿意见模板
审稿意见模板
尊敬的审稿专家：
首先，感谢您抽出宝贵的时间对本文档进行审阅，并提出宝贵的意见和建议。
在您的指导下，我相信这篇文档将会得到进一步的完善和提升。
在审阅本文档时，您可以根据以下几个方面进行评价和提出意见：
1. 文档结构和布局，请审阅文档的结构和布局是否清晰合理，是否符合学术规
范和要求，包括标题、摘要、引言、正文、结论等部分的组织和排版是否恰当。
2. 文档内容和论据，请审阅文档的内容是否充分、准确，论据是否可靠，论证
是否严密，是否存在逻辑漏洞或矛盾之处。
3. 文档语言和表达，请审阅文档的语言是否精炼准确，表达是否清晰流畅，是
否存在语法错误、用词不当等问题。
4. 文档观点和立意，请审阅文档的观点是否明确，立意是否积极向上，是否具
有一定的学术价值和社会意义。
在审阅过程中，您可以根据以上几个方面进行评价，提出批评性的意见和建议，帮助我完善和提升本文档的质量。
您的意见和建议对我来说非常宝贵，我会认真对待并及时进行修改和调整。
最后，再次感谢您的审阅和指导，期待您的宝贵意见和建议，谢谢！
此致。
敬礼。
作者，XXX。
日期，XXXX年XX月XX日。
审稿意见模板
如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。
审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。
当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。
一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。
他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。
结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。
在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。
评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。
通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。
这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。
建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。
那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。
认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。
再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。
同意发表的英文审稿意见
同意发表的英文审稿意见Title:Review Comments on the Accepted ManuscriptIn the review of the accepted manuscript,the reviewer found the research to be well-conducted and the methodology to be sound.The results presented in the manuscript are clear and support the conclusions drawn by the authors.The findings contribute valuable insights to the field and have the potential to advance scientific knowledge in asignificant way.However,there are a few suggestions for improvement.The introduction could be more concise and provide a clearer overview of the research aims and objectives.Additionally, the discussion section could benefit from a more thorough analysis of the results and a discussion of theirimplications for future research.Overall,the reviewer recommends some minor revisions to enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript.With these improvements,the research presented in the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to thescientific community.在对已接受的稿件的审稿中，审稿人认为研究进行得很好，方法论也很完善。
中文期刊审稿意见模板
中文期刊审稿意见模板尊敬的审稿专家：感谢您抽出宝贵的时间对本文进行审阅，并提出宝贵意见。
在您的指导下，我对文章进行了认真的修改，现将修改意见汇总如下：一、总体印象。
您对本文的审阅工作非常细致，提出的修改意见也非常中肯，对于文章的结构和内容进行了深入的分析和指导，使我受益匪浅。
二、文章结构。
您提到的文章结构不够清晰，确实是我在写作过程中没有充分考虑到的问题。
在您的指导下，我重新梳理了文章结构，对各部分进行了重新调整和编排，使得整个文章的逻辑结构更加清晰，条理更加清楚。
三、语言表达。
您指出了文章中存在的一些语言表达不够准确、生动的问题，我在您的指导下对这些问题进行了仔细的修改，采用更加精准、生动、简洁的语言表达，使得文章更具有说服力和吸引力。
四、论据支持。
您认为文章的论据支持不够充分，这也是我在写作过程中没有注意到的问题。
在您的指导下，我对文章的论据进行了重新梳理和补充，增加了一些新的案例和数据，使得文章的论据更加充分、有力。
五、逻辑推理。
您提到文章的逻辑推理不够严密，确实是我在写作过程中存在的不足。
在您的指导下，我对文章的逻辑进行了重新推敲和调整，使得整个文章的逻辑更加清晰、严密，各部分之间的联系更加紧密。
六、结尾部分。
您认为文章的结尾部分不够有力，这也是我在写作过程中没有注意到的问题。
在您的指导下，我对文章的结尾部分进行了重新修改和增补，使得整个文章的结尾更加有力，给人留下深刻的印象。
最后，再次感谢您对本文的审阅工作，您的指导对我在学术写作方面有着非常重要的指导意义。
我会认真对待您提出的修改意见，对文章进行进一步的修改和完善，使得文章在学术水平和表达能力上都得到提升。
希望在不久的将来，能够再次向您呈交修改后的文章，期待您的再次审阅和指导。
衷心感谢！此致。
敬礼！。
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。
(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。
审稿意见范文
审稿意见范文
尊敬的作者：
首先，感谢您选择我们的期刊投稿，并且对您的文章表示由衷的感谢。
在此，
我代表编辑部对您的文章进行了仔细的审阅和评价，并给出了一些审稿意见，希望能够对您的文章做出一些改进和完善。
首先，您的文章在研究主题选择上非常独特和有价值，对相关领域的研究具有
一定的启发意义。
然而，在文中的论证和论据不够充分，需要更多的实证数据和案例来支持您的观点。
建议您在后续的研究中加强对实证研究的深入，以提高文章的可信度和说服力。
其次，文章的结构和逻辑安排方面也存在一些问题。
在文章的开头和结尾部分，需要更好地概括和总结您的研究成果，突出文章的亮点和贡献。
同时，在文章的主体部分，需要更清晰地展现您的研究思路和方法，以便读者更好地理解您的研究过程和成果。
另外，语言表达方面也需要进一步的修改和润色。
在表达上，建议您使用更加
简洁明了的语言，避免使用过多的复杂句式和词汇，以确保读者能够更好地理解您的观点和论证。
最后，希望您能够认真对待我们的审稿意见，并在后续的修改中进行针对性的
改进和完善。
我们期待着您的文章能够在不久的将来再次出现在我们的期刊中，为相关领域的研究和实践做出更大的贡献。
再次感谢您对我们期刊的支持和信任，期待您的回复。
祝好！
编辑部敬上。
医学审稿意见模板范文 英文
医学审稿意见模板范文英文Dear Author,Thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. We have carefully reviewed your work and have the following comments and suggestions for revision:1. Clarity and Organization:- The organization of the manuscript could be improvedto enhance the clarity of the research presented. Consider reorganizing the sections to better guide the reader through the study's objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.2. Methodology and Data Analysis:- The methodology and data analysis should be more thoroughly described. Please provide additional details on the study design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis to ensure the rigor and reproducibility of the research.3. Literature Review:- The literature review would benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of relevant prior studies. Please consider including a more thorough discussion of the existing literature to better contextualize the current study within the field.4. Language and Writing Style:- The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading for language and writing style. Please ensure that the writing is clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors.Overall, while we appreciate the contribution of your research to the field, we believe that the manuscript requires major revisions to meet the standards of our journal. We encourage you to carefully address the comments and suggestions provided and to resubmit your revised manuscript for further consideration.中文翻译：尊敬的作者，感谢您提交您的手稿给我们的期刊。
审稿意见模板大全,最新,最 全
_______________________________________The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research".4. On Section 1:· This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.· Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration.· A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful. 5. On Section 2:· Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditionalwavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former.· Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed.· The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms.6. On Sections 3 and 4:The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs.7. On Section 5:· The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods.· In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using rotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes.· Some of the paragraphs are too long.8. The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research.Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how thetime-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig.The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider:In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered att=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain!What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency techniques from the literature?Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text.以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。
2020年审稿意见范文审稿意见写
2020年审稿意见范文审稿意见写
尊敬的作者：
首先感谢您为本刊投稿，经过仔细评审，我们认为您的文章在某些方面还需要改进。
以下是我们的一些审稿意见，供您参考：
1. 语言表述方面
您的文章中存在一些语言表述不够准确、清晰，需要进行修改。
例如在第二段第一句“根据近几年来的调查显示”，请具体说明“近几年”是指哪几年，以及调查的机构、来源等信息，以增加文章的可信度。
2. 论文结构方面
您的文章结构安排较为松散，需要重新梳理。
建议将文章内容分为引言、方法、结果与分析、结论等部分，增强文章的逻辑性和连贯性。
3. 数据分析方面
您的文章中提到的数据较为丰富，但是有些数据分析不够充分。
请详细说明数据的来源、分析方法、结果及其证明等内容，以增强数据的可信性和科学性。
4. 结论与实践意义方面
您的文章中结论部分较为模糊，没有明确表述研究的实践意义。
建议结论部分明确进行总结和归纳，强化研究的实践应用价值。
总之，您的文章具有学术研究的价值和思路，但是在语言表述、论文结构、数据分析和结论与实践意义等方面还需要进行调整和完善。
希望您认真考虑我们的意见，并将其融入到文章的修改中。
祝好，
审稿人。
论文审稿意见模板
论文审稿意见模板
尊敬的作者：
首先，我要对你的论文表示感谢。
你的研究对我们的期刊有着重要的意义，我们非常感谢你选择我们期刊来发表你的研究成果。
在此，我代表编辑部对你的论文进行审阅，并提出一些审稿意见，希望能对你的论文做出一些有益的改进。
首先，我要指出你的论文在研究方法和数据分析方面做得非常出色。
你清晰地描述了研究的目的和方法，而且你的数据分析也很详细，能够很好地支持你的研究结论。
这些都是你论文的亮点，也是你研究的重要贡献。
然而，在文献综述和讨论部分，我认为你可以进一步完善。
你的文献综述部分有些单薄，而且在讨论研究结果时，缺乏对现有研究的深入分析和对比。
我建议你在这两个部分加强文献综述的深度和广度，同时对研究结果进行更深入的解释和讨论，以增强你论文的学术价值。
此外，我还注意到你的论文在语言表达和逻辑结构方面还有一些不够严谨的地方。
在修订时，建议你仔细检查论文中的语言错误和逻辑不清晰的地方，确保论文表达准确清晰，逻辑严谨。
总的来说，你的论文有很强的创新性和学术价值，但还需要在文献综述和讨论部分加强，同时注意语言表达和逻辑结构的修正。
我相信经过你的努力和修正，你的论文一定能够更加完善，为学术界做出更大的贡献。
再次感谢你的投稿，期待你的修订版论文能够很快再次提交给我们期刊。
祝你在学术研究道路上取得更大的成就！
祝好！
编辑部审稿人敬上。
- 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)。
Comments on “Chromium (VI) reduction in aqueous medium by means of catalytic membrane reactors”
This manuscript deals with a novel method for catalytic reduction of chromium (VI) using catalytic membrane reactions with Pd and Pd/CeO2/Fe2O3active phases. While I like the topic of the manuscript, I believe the manuscript does not provide sufficient details, more work need to be further studied, such as optimizing the performance of the reactors, providing sufficient details and proof on the mechanism of how the Cr(VI)transformed into Cr(III) with hydrogen by means of CMRs, and providing explanations on that Cr reduction is faster in mineral water than in model solution. In conclusion, because of the lack of results, I think that this paper is not suitable for publication on this journal.
Specific comments:
1. Introduction part, please provide some investigations about chromium reduction by Pd, and its mechanism has been published.
2. Line 111-120, the references in this part were too more. Please choose some representative ones.
3. Line 178-179, please give the explanation on the conversion of CrO42-and Cr(VI) concentration.
4. Line 407, please improve the resolution of Fig.
5. And in Fig.5, the role of CeO2 and Fe2O3 was not reflected.
5. Line 416, it was shown that CMR0 and CMR1 were used to reduce Cr(VI) in Fig.6, while in the caption of Fig. 6, it described that CMR0 and CMR2 were used. Please check the figure and caption.
6. Line 508-511, comparing the activity of CMR3 and CMR1, the authors concluded that Ce participates in the Cr reduction. However, the Pd content was different in the two membranes. In my opinion, a CMR of the same Pd content with CMR3 should be used to compare the activity.
7. Line 515, some data in Table 2 was repeated with the figures in the manuscript. Please put the Table in the supporting information.
8. Line 537-539, please provide some details to prove that Ce could increase the active sites in the reaction. And how about Fe2O3? There was not any explanation on the role of Fe2O3.。