以下 12 點(diǎn)無(wú)輕重主次之分。每一點(diǎn)內(nèi)容由總結(jié)性標(biāo)題和代表性審稿人意見構(gòu)成。

　1、目標(biāo)和結(jié)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、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分。

　◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. ◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.

　3、對(duì)于研究設(shè)計(jì)的 rationale:

　Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.

　4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：

　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、對(duì) hypothesis 的清晰界定：

　A hypothesis needs to be presented。

　6、對(duì)某個(gè)概念或工具使用的 rationale/定義概念：

　What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

　 7、對(duì)研究問題的定義：

　Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,

　write one section to define the problem

　8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫 literature review:

　The

　topic

　is

　novel

　but

　the

　application

　proposed

　is

　not

　so

　novel. 9、對(duì) claim,如 A＞B 的證明，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、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問題：

　MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.

　11、格式（重視程度）：

　◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf

　"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、語(yǔ)言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題）：

　有關(guān)語(yǔ)言的審稿人意見：

　◆ 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 pro blems 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 i n 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.

　來自編輯的鼓勵(lì)：

　Encouragement from reviewers: ◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be en edited because the subject is interesting. ◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat erials. ◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.

　 老外寫的英文綜述文章的審稿意見

　Ms. Ref. No.: ****** Title: ******

　Materials Science and Engineering

　Dear 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

　這是一篇全過程我均比較了解的投稿，稿件的內(nèi)容我認(rèn)為是相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的，中文版投稿于業(yè)內(nèi)有較高影響的某核心期刊，并很快得到發(fā)表。其時(shí)我作為審稿人之一，

　除了提出一些修改建議外，還特建議了 5 篇應(yīng)增加的參考文獻(xiàn)，該文正式發(fā)表時(shí)共計(jì)有參考文獻(xiàn) 25 篇。

　作者或許看到審稿意見還不錯(cuò)，因此決意嘗試向美國(guó)某學(xué)會(huì)主辦的一份英文刊投稿。幾經(jīng)修改和補(bǔ)充后，請(qǐng)一位英文“功底"較好的中國(guó)人翻譯，投稿后約 3 周，便返回了三份審稿意見。

　從英文刊的反饋意見看，這篇稿件中最嚴(yán)重的問題是文獻(xiàn)綜述和引用不夠，其次是語(yǔ)言表達(dá)方面的欠缺，此外是論證過程和結(jié)果展示形式方面的不足。

　感想：一篇好的論文，從內(nèi)容到形式都需要精雕細(xì)琢。

　附 1：中譯審稿意見 審稿意見—1 (1) 英文表達(dá)太差，盡管意思大致能表達(dá)清楚，但文法錯(cuò)誤太多。

　(2) 文獻(xiàn)綜述較差，觀點(diǎn)或論斷應(yīng)有文獻(xiàn)支持。

　(3) 論文讀起來像是 XXX 的廣告，不知道作者與 XXX 是否沒有關(guān)聯(lián)。

　(4) 該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多 XX 采取此模式（如美國(guó)地球物理學(xué)會(huì)），作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析 XXX 運(yùn)作模式的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。

　(5) 該模式也不是作者所說的那樣成功……(審稿人結(jié)合論文中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析) 審稿意見—2 (1) 缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)引用(如…)。

　(2) 寫作質(zhì)量達(dá)不到美國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

　審稿意見—3 (1) 作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻(xiàn)。

　(2) 缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。

　(3) 需要采用表格和圖件形式展示(數(shù)據(jù))材料。

　附 2：英文審稿意見(略有刪節(jié)) Reviewer: 1 There are many things wrong with this paper. The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct. The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references. The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX. The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model. The model is also not as successful as the author claims. …… Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected. Reviewer: 2 The are two major problems with this paper: (1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the "two-sided" market literature including that directly related to … (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis,

　2007).

　(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal. Reviewer: 3 1. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript. 2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries. 3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.

　例：附 附 1 1 ：中譯審稿意見 審稿意見 —1 1 (1) 英文表達(dá)太差，盡管意思大致能表達(dá)清楚，但文法錯(cuò)誤太多。

　(2) 文獻(xiàn)綜述較差，觀點(diǎn)或論斷應(yīng)有文獻(xiàn)支持。

　(3) 論文讀起來像是 XXX 的廣告，不知道作者與 XXX 是否沒有關(guān)聯(lián)。

　(4) 該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多 XX 采取此模式（如美國(guó)地球物理學(xué)會(huì)），作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析 XXX 運(yùn)作模式的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。

　(5) 該模式也不是作者所說的那樣成功……(審稿人結(jié)合論文中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析) 審稿意見 —2 2 (1) 缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)引用(如…)。

　(2) 寫作質(zhì)量達(dá)不到美國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

　審稿意見 —3 3

　(1) 作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻(xiàn)。

　(2) 缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。

　(3) 需要采用表格和圖件形式展示(數(shù)據(jù))材料。

　附 附 2 2 ：英文審稿意見( ( 略有刪節(jié)) ) Reviewer: 1 There are many things wrong with this paper. The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct. The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references. The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX. The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model. The model is also not as successful as the author claims. …… Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected. Reviewer: 2 The are two major problems with this paper: (1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the "two-sided"

　market literature including that directly related to … (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007). (2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal. Reviewer: 3 1. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript. 2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries. 3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.

推薦訪問： 審稿 英文 匯總