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，我想不会毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵
网上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：
submittingA hypothesis needs to be presented。
6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：
What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?
7、对研究问题的定义：
Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,
write one section to define the problem
8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.
9、对claim，如A＞B的证明，verification:
There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.
10、严谨度问题：
MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.
11、格式（重视程度）：
In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.
Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.
12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：
有关语言的审稿人意见：
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.
As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.
The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that
you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.
Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?
the quality of English needs improving.
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 4
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25
Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.
Name: XXX
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。" it has been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form.
1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but:
- the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）
- it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
- it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
-
it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).
（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）
2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors
- state that XXXXX
- state that XXXX
- This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size?
（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）
3. When discussing luminescence measurements authors write "XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates!!!
（研究了什么？？？）
4.英语写作要提高
（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）
Reviewer 5
Reviewer Recommendation Term: Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: N/A
Comments to Editor:
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.
Name:（国人）
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx
Dear editor:
Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In 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

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。