24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【奖励】本帖被评价3次，作者HarveyWang增加金币 2.5 个

当前主题已经存档。

HarveyWang

捐助贵宾 (知名作家)

应助: 80 (初中生)
金币: 2277.2
帖子: 6880
在线: 946小时
虫号: 528557

[资源] 【我的评审习惯顺序，兼披露一封国内审稿人的垃圾审稿意见】已有2人参与

=========有人问我怎么能写三页的审稿意见======

第一部分：我的评审习惯列在下面，
大家投稿时可以逐条对照着来审核自己的稿件。相信是有好处的。

什么时候，您学会了以最严厉的审稿人的眼光来看自己的稿件，您的论文写作水平就提高了。
另外，您需要记住的一句话是，
您让审稿人方便，审稿人就会让您爽。

例如，您的语言错误连篇，能给审稿人好印象吗？
谁能仔细体会到这句话的涵义，他的投中率就会大大提高。^_^

***********************************************
Overall comments

论文内容简介、主要亮点和不足。
建议接受、小修、大修和补充数据、直接退稿。

Specific comments
I) Novelty ??
(也包括剽窃、重复研究、或明显造假调查，其中重复研究的最多）
这项最费时间，每篇评审论文我都会去调查与之类似的工作。
这样也是给自己学习的一个机会。^_^

II) Specific technical details, ??
具体的技术问题，
例如有人声称做了蛋白表达和纯化，而这又是文章主体内容的一部分，
但是不列出SDS——PAGE中间结果，只有最后纯化结果，这就会让他补充图片。

再例如
明细的计算错误，
该用误差线的没有标明
单位问题
测定方法问题

III) Experimental design, ??
实验设计的缺陷，该补充的对照、实验等等

IV)Logical Relations Between Sentences??
这主要是上下文数据和结论的转折、联系方面的建议

V)Figures and Tables( technical problems) ??
图表的处理
图表文字说明等问题

VI) and finally language.

（最后一项一般是一页）
*************************************************************
这样一项一项地评判下来，起码两页哦

第二部分：附某杂志的评价项目
您仔细对照着看，这是某杂志的评价细目打分表。
***********************************************************
Manuscript Details

Referee Affiliation
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Manuscript ID:
AAA-XXXXXX
Wiley - Manuscript type:
Original Article

Key Words:
AAAA, BBBBBBB, CCC

Date Submitted:
26-Jan-2010

Manuscript Title:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Date Assigned:
04-Feb-2010

Date Review Returned:
18-Feb-2010

Authors:
XXXXX
   Phone:XXX
   Phone:86-029-XXXXX
   E-Mail:XXXXXXXX@163.com

CCCCC
   Phone:86-029-8XXXXXXXX
   Phone:86-029-XXXXXXx
   E-Mail:XXXX@nwu.edu.cn

Journal of XXXXXXXXXX
Journal Review Form

Graded Questions

Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent:  GRADE
The paper's level of innovation/advancement  2
The paper's standard of English  1
注意，杂志有语言评价一项。您没想到过吗，语言写好，能加分不少哦

Yes/No Questions for primary research articles
(Explain further any problems in Comments)  Yes  No
1. Do the title and abstract reflect the content and emphasize the paper's interest and significance?
2. Are the scientific conclusions justified by the data?
3. Is the paper too descriptive, i.e. not advancing a hypothesis?
4. Is the paper concise? If not, note in the comments where it could be shortened.
5. Are the statistics and equations appropriate and correct (if used)?
6. Has any of this work been published elsewhere?
7. Are all the figures and tables required?

Yes/No Questions for reviews, mini-reviews, spotlights or perspectives
(Explain further any problems in Comments)  Yes  No
1. Does the title reflect the content and emphasize the paper's interest and significance?
2. Are the statements of fact correct and properly referenced?
3. Is the style readable and engaging?
（文章写不好，实验做得好也没用）
4. Have complex or specialist terms or concepts been adequately explained?
5. For reviews/mini-reviews, is the coverage sufficiently balanced, comprehensive and critical, and are the scientific conclusions justified by the literature presented?
6. Has this particular topic been covered too frequently in recent years?

OVERALL SCIENTIFIC GRADING:
Poor

INFORMATION RELEASE  Yes  No
Your answers to the above questions are confidential and will not automatically be sent to the authors. In some cases, however, the editors might find it helpful to be able to forward your responses; in that event, do you give your permission for them to do so?

Recommendation

Accept (Scientifically sound. Minor grammatical and spelling errors to be changed by publisher)

Minor Revision (minor scientific amendments or clarification required; and/or English language needs improvement)

Major Revision (significant rewrite required; further experiments required; and/or lacking important information)

  Reject (scientifically unsound; unoriginal; and/or not a significant advancement)

Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?

  Yes/ No


Comments

CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO THE EDITOR

Comments NOT intended for authors may also be included in a document that is uploaded separately as part of this review.

My Comments
XXXXXXXXXXXX

COMMENTS FOR AUTHORS

Please do not include your name in this section. Comments for authors may also be included in a document that is uploaded separately as part of this review.

See the attached PDF.

Files attached

Comments on ZZZ-XXXX.pdf PDF
This file is for the Author and Editor
*************************************************************

第三部分：给大家欣赏一篇国内审稿人的评语

给大家欣赏一篇国内审稿人的评语。
说是一篇，其实就三句话^_^
不要问我从哪里搞到的，我也审稿，也做编辑。
经常看到类似的国内的 “国际同行” 评审建议。^_^

Reviewer Comments:
Referee: 1
（这个是我的审稿意见^_^，写了三页，由于是涉及具体实验内容，故省去。
虽然论文是国内某人做的垃圾工作，但还是提出了许多具体的建议，从如何避开类似工作来阐述自己工作的科学价值、同样材料方法要突出不同的研究重点，最后是语言问题等等，关键是别人做了类似工作了，作者不好再发同样的文章。这主要都是导师不负责任，任由学生做重复研究。）
COMMENTS FOR AUTHORS
See the attached PDF.

Referee: 2
（国内某211大学“有名的”学术带头人的评语，是谁就不指出来了，只是提醒大家，最好不要找国内那些顶着某些光环的所谓“专家”审稿，他或者没时间，或者给你应付一下，或者本来就是垃圾。发酵工程是他的专业、强项，从下面的评语，您能看出他的专业素养来吗？^_^）

COMMENTS FOR AUTHORS
1. The research work was sound.
2. There were too many areas, which needed to be rewritten or rephrased. It is just English language decoration.
3. The suggestion is for major revision.

Date Sent:
10-Mar-2010

[ Last edited by HarveyWang on 2010-3-21 at 21:05 ]

24小时热门版块排行榜

[资源] 【我的评审习惯顺序，兼披露一封国内审稿人的垃圾审稿意见】已有2人参与

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐

★★★ 三星级,支持鼓励