英文审稿意见汇总.doc

1、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, th

2、ere 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 co

3、nclusions 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 ratio?7、对研究问题的定义：T

4、ry 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 AB 的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previous

5、ly 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

6、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-ha

7、nd 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

8、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 th

9、e 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 h

10、ave 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

11、 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. The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with

12、 grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your effort compares with state-of-the-art? The experiment is

13、the major problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimental result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain thi

14、s result? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement? the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words. it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language. The authors did a good job in motivatin

15、g the problem studied in the introduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors propose. Apparently， Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In m

16、y humble opinion如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .according to review comments.如果是接受，你可以用We are very pleased to inform you that your paper “xxxxx“ has been accepted by journal name. Please prepare your paper by journal template.At a first glance, this shor

17、t manuscript seems an interesting piece ofwork, reporting on . Fine, good quality, but all this has been done and published, and nearly become a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, there is insufficient novelty or significance to meet publication criteria. Also, I did not see any expermental evidence

18、how the * is related with *, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。the journals copy editors should not have to fix the many remaining errors. I sympathize that Chinese languag

19、es do not have an equivalent of English articles a, an, the and dont seem to grasp the material meaning of those words. The authors English expert decided to insert the word the in front of most mentions of “tip-tilt system.“ This implies that there is only one system and the authors are using it ex

20、clusively. There are dozns of other misuses. Pages 2,3, 8,9,10,11, and 12 are littered with them. The paper is to difficult to read in its present form.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

21、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。附 2：英文审稿意见(略有删节)Reviewer: 1There are many things wrong with this paper.The English is very bad. A

22、lthough 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 A

23、A 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

24、 claims. Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.Reviewer: 2The 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 direc

25、tly related to (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides McCabe 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

26、) 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.英文论文写作、投稿详解(整理各大学术论坛相关帖子，转帖) 目前科技论文作者向国际英文科技期刊投稿的方式有三种。一是传统的邮寄形式，即通过国际快件将论文的原稿邮寄给刊物的主编或