| 查看: 6858 | 回复: 29 | ||||
| 【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。 | ||||
[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 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 SCI写作、投稿、经验 | 学术杂谈 |
» 猜你喜欢
一志愿重庆大学085700资源与环境总分308求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
268求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
302求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
306求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
材料学学硕080502 337求调剂-一志愿华中科技大学
已经有4人回复
-
求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
313求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
南昌大学材料专硕311分求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
316求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
346求调剂[0856]
已经有7人回复
» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)
22楼2010-04-01 20:40:25
2楼2010-03-21 15:53:39
3楼2010-03-21 15:54:57
4楼2010-03-21 15:56:32
5楼2010-03-21 15:58:23
6楼2010-03-21 16:10:23
7楼2010-03-21 18:03:08
8楼2010-03-21 18:43:25
9楼2010-03-21 19:26:03
10楼2010-03-21 19:35:25
11楼2010-03-21 19:38:02
12楼2010-03-21 20:07:37
13楼2010-03-21 20:17:05
14楼2010-03-21 20:26:22
15楼2010-03-21 20:41:03
16楼2010-03-21 21:10:54
17楼2010-03-21 21:22:40
18楼2010-03-22 20:42:34
19楼2010-04-01 14:57:57
20楼2010-04-01 15:42:36
21楼2010-04-01 19:18:59
23楼2010-04-01 20:47:06
24楼2010-04-01 22:12:44
25楼2010-04-01 22:40:59
26楼2010-04-05 23:07:27
27楼2010-04-05 23:23:04
28楼2010-04-21 16:16:43
29楼2010-04-21 20:35:55
30楼2010-04-21 22:42:57
