審稿意見模板

1、如何學習審稿專家學者為什么愿意拿出大量的時間審稿呢?為期刊審稿是義務，也是一份榮耀，更是自我價值的實現(xiàn)，那就是為進步做出了一份貢獻。審稿人都是志愿提供服務而不計報酬。當然，通過審稿還會得到其他好處，（1）首先是精神上的收獲，能夠增加科學知識，體驗科學交流和論爭的樂趣；（2）最新的研究進展在發(fā)表之前就有機會看到（不亦快哉?。?；（3）通過對照其他審稿人的評論和編輯的稿件處理意見，可提高自己的審稿技能；（4）通過發(fā)現(xiàn)論文中的錯誤，可以學習如何寫出更有競爭力的稿件；（5）會得到編輯的尊敬，甚或有機會被邀請加入學會或編委會；例如美國呼吸與危重監(jiān)護雜志（ajrccm）編委會的任命，就是完全根據(jù)審稿人的審稿

2、是否中肯、嚴謹、及時。 一個優(yōu)秀的審稿人又有什么特征呢? black等曾對英國雜志（bmj）的審稿人進行過評價，其目的是想明確高水平審稿人的特征，特別是在審稿花費時間和審回時間方面。他們對bmj的420份稿件的審稿人進行了調(diào)查，2位編輯和稿件的責任作者對審稿質(zhì)量進行獨立評估。結(jié)果編輯和論文作者的評估都顯示，經(jīng)過流行病學或統(tǒng)計學培訓是提供高質(zhì)量評閱的審稿人的唯一顯著性相關(guān)因素。在編輯的質(zhì)量評估中，年輕是高質(zhì)量評閱的獨立預測因素。評審花費的時間與審稿質(zhì)量的提高相關(guān)，但超過3小時則無更大意義。通常認為，正在從事研究工作的人員、擁有學術(shù)職位者、科研資助團體成員，應該會提供更高質(zhì)量的審稿，但令人意外的是

3、，這項研究并沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)審稿質(zhì)量與上述特征相關(guān)。這一結(jié)果對于編輯的意義是，要發(fā)現(xiàn)優(yōu)秀的審稿人，只有不斷試用新人，評估他們的表現(xiàn)，然后決定是否繼續(xù)用他們。建議征集接受過流行病學和統(tǒng)計學訓練的、年齡在40歲左右的審稿人。那么年輕學者如何學習、提高審稿技能呢?最重要的是在實踐中提高，就是通過審稿提高審稿水平。認真研讀自己投稿得回的評審意見，以學習他人是如何審稿的。再就是比較同一稿件自己的審稿意見和其他審稿人的意見，發(fā)現(xiàn)新的視角，得到有益反饋。對于有條件的年輕學者，可以替自己的上級（例如老師、上級醫(yī)師等）草擬審稿意見，由此可得到更為全面的訓練和提高。做好審稿工作需要什么?第一是能動性。對同行要有絕對的責任

4、感，堅信通過同行評閱認定的高水準的文獻，對科學進步是至關(guān)重要的。要珍惜這樣的機會，審閱一篇好文章，即得到知識，又得到樂趣，不亞于參加一場研討會。審稿的質(zhì)量具有重要的感染力，可影響到作者的學術(shù)態(tài)度和學術(shù)行為。其次是要具備科學技能。審稿人面臨的挑戰(zhàn)是，要發(fā)現(xiàn)那些作者本人沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)的東西。這是一項艱巨的任務，需要兩項科學技能，一是對文獻有全面掌握，即熟悉進展，又熟悉經(jīng)典；二是掌握相關(guān)的科學知識，能夠?qū)⒖评砗涂茖W發(fā)現(xiàn)應用到新的科學研究中。當然，審稿人也會碰到自己不熟悉的知識點，這時可以向他人請教、學習，或者謝絕審稿，請編輯另找他人。第三要有樂于助人的態(tài)度。做好審稿工作需要相當大的智力投入，又不能很快得到

5、審稿人所在學術(shù)機構(gòu)或同行的認可。令作者滿意的是文章被接受，而不是審稿質(zhì)量。不滿意的作者對審稿人會有一些負面看法：挑剔、草率、武斷、教條、膚淺、傲慢、不公正、忌妒、自私自利。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表達清楚的評審意見，能夠提高稿件的科學性和易讀性，能夠增加作者的知識，提高作者從事和報道科學研究的能力。審稿時應該對作者及其工作充滿敬意，要耐心、客觀公正地閱讀，對新觀點新方法持開放態(tài)度，但又不能“放水”。提出的意見要有正當理由，觀點表達清楚，讓人看得懂；要提出明確的建議（但不一定明確是接受或拒絕）。最后，審稿當然需要時間。如果只讀一遍，恐怕會錯失重要的深入看法。在提出全面的、明確的觀點之前，常常需

6、要反復斟酌。不同稿件需要的時間可能不同，有的3個小時也不一定夠。審稿給審稿人帶來的好處，已如前述。但審稿肯定會與自己的工作、甚至生活發(fā)生沖突，看病、科研、申請課題、休假等等，不一而足。無論如何，既然接受了審稿邀請，你就必須拿出足夠的時間。具體到審稿過程或步驟，每個人可能都有自己的經(jīng)驗。但一般來說，可分為接受任務、閱讀和評價、提出建議和撰寫審稿意見等步驟。1接受審稿邀請對于自己感興趣的題目，研究工作在自己的專業(yè)技能之內(nèi)，而且又能拿出時間認真審閱時，可考慮接受邀請。對于自己不熟悉的專業(yè)領域，應果斷拒絕。只要你說明拒絕的理由，編輯不會認為你對審稿不感興趣。2閱讀和評價先花點時間看看摘要，初步了解在實

7、驗設計、方法、結(jié)果和結(jié)論中，你需要看的重點是什么，特別要看出作者認為其工作的重點是什么。提出一個寬泛的問題，帶著問題去看全文：例如，這是一篇關(guān)于方法學的論文、是病例總結(jié)還是病例報道?與以往的論文相比，本文的新意是什么?然后再仔細閱讀全文，要看懂；遇到看不懂的地方，要分析原因，是科學問題令人困惑，還是作者沒有講清楚。不合邏輯或有悖于常識的科學問題包括：互相矛盾、結(jié)論無根據(jù)、因果關(guān)系（歸因）不當、不恰當推論、循環(huán)推理、糾纏于瑣碎問題等。統(tǒng)計學問題也屬于此類。至于寫作問題，有的是不會寫或?qū)懖缓?，對此應明確提出讓作者修改，例如冗余、跑題、術(shù)語不解釋、用詞不準確、專業(yè)術(shù)語不規(guī)范、縮略語不規(guī)范。行文要求條

8、理清楚，讓讀者跟著自己的思路走。更重要的是要看實驗設計是否交待清楚，研究的邏輯性結(jié)構(gòu)包括目的、假說、假說的可驗性預測、結(jié)論等是否完善。重要問題不應不予以交代，例如方法學上的局限性，本研究結(jié)果與其他研究結(jié)果的不一致性或一致性等，都需在討論部分予以說明。論文中還會經(jīng)常碰到一些“低級“的過失誤差，例如百分比加起來不是100，數(shù)字前后不一致等，這些往往很容易逃過審稿人的眼睛！在讀完第一遍后，先不要急于下結(jié)論。一定要拿出時間繼續(xù)閱讀第二遍，此時要對稿件做出評價。首先評價稿件的科學性，盡管一篇論文的結(jié)論是否正確，也許好幾年后才能搞清楚。但問題是論文需要現(xiàn)在就發(fā)表，因此要看其科學性是否正確，特別是推論（論證

9、）的質(zhì)量、科理和知識的運用。一篇論文是否重要，不一定那么容易判斷。是應用性研究還是基礎性研究，就要考慮到對本刊的讀者是否適宜。不要考慮作者的學術(shù)地位和名氣；受尊敬的科學家和朋友的投稿，審稿人往往對其中的弱點不愿（不敢?）提出挑戰(zhàn)，會感到猶豫不決，這對期刊是不利的。目前有的期刊采用作者匿名的方式送審，可能會避免這種情況，但到底能在多大程度上提高審稿質(zhì)量尚有待證實。其次要評價稿件的寫作情況，表達是否清晰、準確、完整，這些問題一定要提出來；如果審稿人看起來費勁，更何況其他讀者?當然不同作者的寫作風格可有不同，倒也不必千篇一律。看完后要嘗試提出建議了。給編輯的建議要反映出：（1）對稿件最終處理意見的初

10、步看法，即接受還是退稿；（2）在做出上述決定之前，你認為需要采取的措施有哪些，例如，一篇論文探討的問題是令人關(guān)注的課題，想法也令人很感興趣，但其科學性不夠強，那么你就要提出如何改進其科學性的建議。你可以提出正反兩方面的看法，供編輯決定是否錄用時參考。決定是否接受還要考慮到期刊的發(fā)表率。在很多情況下，審稿人的建議是 “待定”，等待作者對提出的問題給予答復。對于可能存在嚴重缺點的稿件，要特別注意給作者答復的機會；有時他們會很快將問題解決，有時問題并不一定能解決。3撰寫審稿意見審稿意見要用文字描述，不能只打勾（）。給編者的話（致編輯）包括3個部分，文字要精煉，一般不超過二三百字：（1）概要，用三四句

11、話說明研究的主題、基本方法、主要發(fā)現(xiàn)，解讀（釋義）作者的主要結(jié)論。這對于梳理審稿人的思路很重要，同時也讓編輯能夠更好地了解以下2部分提出的意見。（2）主要評價和問題。（3）建議，例如：本文提出了什么新的觀點、有何新的發(fā)現(xiàn)、值得進一步修改，等等。給作者的意見（致作者）要更加具體，字數(shù)更多一些?；驹瓌t是，審稿人發(fā)現(xiàn)的問題，必須對作者說清楚；不要給予表揚，因為稿件能被接受，作者就夠高興的了；避免指責，這完全沒有必要，作者反而會認為審稿人輕視別人、失禮。每一篇投稿都是同行長期工作的成果，對他們來說這意味著職稱、學位、科研基金、成果、學術(shù)地位，或許還有獎金。給作者的意見同樣包括3個部分。（1）概要同

12、“致編輯”，作者可以獲悉審稿人從其論文中看到了什么，有些可能是作者自己都想不到的，這有助于作者突出重點，如何準備回復或修改。（2）主要評價和問題：逐條書寫，要解釋清楚，要有依據(jù)；不要只給予“定性”的陳述，例如不要籠統(tǒng)地說“對照組不恰當，”要具體指出問題和理由。對于寫作上的問題，審稿人有時也許會感到“生氣”：文章沒寫好就投稿，太不禮貌了（甚至會說，太不嚴謹了）。 遇到寫作問題，審稿人可具體羅列主要的幾條，并提出修改建議。對于實在太差的，要明確告訴作者請其上級（導師）或有經(jīng)驗的同事幫著修改。（3）次要問題，例如冗余、符號使用不當、錯別字等，審稿人一般會籠統(tǒng)地提及需要修改，但如果能按頁碼和分行逐一列

13、出，作者肯定會對你的嚴謹態(tài)度和責任感表示敬佩。如何正確審稿很多人都審過稿，英文的、中文的。每個人審稿都要寫出相應的意見。當意見是同意接受時，無論指的毛病有多犀利還是什么，作者都能認可。但是當意見是拒絕時，作者本能的反應就是意見寫的太過火了，或者根本不是針對論文的。那么應該如何審稿才能盡量避免引起作者的強烈不滿呢。很多人都有自己的觀點，我說幾個自認為很重要的意見：1、不要因為寫作水平差就隨便拒稿。眾所周知，從小學、初中、高中開始，很多學生都有偏科的現(xiàn)象，特別是很多數(shù)學或者物理好的人，往往作文水平差。雖然科技論文的寫作屬于八股論文，有一定的格式，但是很多時候有的人的表述還是不好。因此這種情況下，如

14、果作者的論文有新意，只要寫作能夠把自己的觀點表述清楚，就盡量建議接受，指出作者對文稿認真修改即可。2、不要故意寫作者沒有做什么實驗或模擬而拒稿。很多人做研究的時候，都喜歡把問題簡單化，盡量減少某些考慮因素。因此在審稿的時候，只要作者針對某個因素進行了透徹的研究，千萬不能因為沒有考慮某些方面而拒稿。這里可能舉例說明一下：比如做材料研究時，由于很多材料都是非球形，但是做數(shù)值模擬的時候為了簡化，很可能將材料先作為球形來研究，只要作者利用球形得到的結(jié)果真實，要新意，那么就要接受該稿子?？赡茉趯徃逡庖娎锝ㄗh作者繼續(xù)做非球形的材料。3、炒冷飯的一定要拒稿。很多人為了文章數(shù)量，將自己很多發(fā)表了的論文加以整理

15、，但是沒有任何新的工作，這樣的稿子一定要堅持拒稿。審稿的時候，經(jīng)?？吹胶芏辔恼轮写蟛糠值膶嶒灪凸蕉际窃趪饣蛘邍鴥?nèi)好刊物上發(fā)表了，這樣的稿件實質(zhì)上屬于一稿多發(fā)，遇到這種情況，千萬不能因為作者是牛人，或者說別人的成果已經(jīng)發(fā)表在?？锷暇筒缓镁芙^。一定要保證不能讓人隨便灌水。4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。很多時候做科研或者寫論文，都是在賣弄一些概念或者想法，只要任何人想到了，就能得到相應的結(jié)果。這個時候如果你恰好審到了一篇你很感興趣的、而且想法很奇特、但是有新意的文章，千萬不能因為覺得自己也能進行這樣的工作而拒稿。5、不能因為反對自己的觀點而拒稿。很多研究生在寫前言和綜述的時候，經(jīng)常引用一些大牛

16、的綜述，在綜述里面經(jīng)常會有某個觀點和實驗存在某些問題和缺點，如果這個時候你審的稿子中正好說到了自己的缺點，這個時候千萬不要生氣，一定要看看作者說自己的缺點在別人考慮問題中的重要性，如果很重要，那要看作者能不能解決，如果不重要，那就不要在意作者。一般審稿意見至少要包含三條：（1）簡要描述論文的研究內(nèi)容和意義，并作出評價。對于其比較好的部分，要給于肯定。（2）針對文章中的內(nèi)容和結(jié)果，指出其具體的不足之處，并談談你的看法。文章的不足之處有三種層次：第一，論文結(jié)果不正確或有重大失誤；第二，論文缺乏重要的結(jié)果；第三，論文的結(jié)果不夠完善。（3）最后，給出你的綜合評價，接受，修改，還是拒收。以下是從一個朋友

17、轉(zhuǎn)載來的，關(guān)于英文投稿過程中編輯給出的意見。與大家一起分享。 以下12點無輕重主次之分。每一點內(nèi)容由總結(jié)性標題和代表性審稿人意見構(gòu)成。 1、目標和結(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

18、 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 methods used in the study. furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、對于研究設計的rationale: also, there are few explanat

19、ions of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴謹： 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hypothesis的清晰界定： a hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、對某個概念或工具使用的rationale/

20、定義概念： what was the rationale for the film/sbf volume ratio? 7、對研究問題的定義： 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claim,如ab的證明，verificat

21、ion: 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、嚴謹度問題： 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

22、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 instructions to authors that

23、are given under the instructions and forms button in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. 12、語言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題），有關(guān)語言的審稿人意見： 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 sen

24、tence 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 no

25、t 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

26、 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. 13、來自編輯的鼓勵encouragement from reviewers: i would be very glad to re-re

27、view the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject 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

28、 of publication. 審稿意見的一些套話1. this is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. a few minor revisions are list below.2. this is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. for the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clar

29、ifying and certain statements require further justification. there are given below.3. although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in pnas. we suggest that the authors try submitting their find

30、ings to specialist journal such as 4. although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.5. this manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - . 6. please ask

31、someone familiar with english language to help you rewrite this paper. as you will see, i have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory. 7. we feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding corre

32、ctly in english and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of english, preferable native speaker.8. the wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning hplc, need careful editing. attention should be paid to the wording of those part

33、s of the discussion of and summary which have been underlined.9. preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in table 2, none has been repeated. this is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.10. the condition of incu

34、bation is poorly defined. what is the temperature? were antibody used?完整模板：論文審稿title: fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency analysis method in rotor systems journal of sound and vibration dear student , we have now received comments on your manuscript from the reviewers (reports included

35、below). please revise your manuscript according to the referees suggestions and detail all the changes which you have made. i hope you will be prepared to undertake this, and i will then be pleased to reconsider the manuscript for publication. please note that due to the extensive revisions necessay

36、 on your manuscript, it will need to be sent out for re-review. if you do decide to revise the paper, we need to receive your new manuscript within the next six months. you are asked to submit the following items along with the manuscript: (1) a point-by-point reply that we can send to each reviewer

37、; (2) a separate list of the revisions made to the manuscript. it is important that you address all the issues raised by the referees, either by revision or reasoned rebuttal, before we make a decision on publication. when submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source

38、files (e.g. word). uploading only a pdf file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. if your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them. to submit a revision, please go to and login as an author. your

39、 username is: * your password is: * on your main menu page is a folder entitled submissions needing revision. you will find your submission record there. yours sincerely, richard berryman editorial office (australasia) journal of sound and vibration reviewers comments: reviewer #1: comments on jsv-d

40、-06-01203 title: fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency method in rotor systems by: , and _ the paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. it is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very signifi

41、cant improvement before acceptance for publication. my detailed comments are as follows: 1. the wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. on the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the pre

42、sent research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research. 2. for the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. the material was not properly organized and it

43、 is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the english writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area. 3. the title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods.

44、 also, remove the word research. 4. on section 1: this section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. if the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present r

45、esearch are needed. review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. the author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor sys

46、tem vibration. a few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful. 5. on section 2: since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). instead, the author

47、s may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former. eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and 2 is missed. the description after eq (2) is not clear. see cohens book for details about

48、the cross-terms. 6. on sections 3 and 4: the description needs to be improved. the material in section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs. 7. on section 5: the authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. however,

49、the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods. in fact, it is p

50、ossible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using rotor dynamics. for example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes. some of the paragraphs are too long. 8. the conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research. reviewer #2: this paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. the title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods