審稿意見模板

1、如何學(xué)習(xí)審稿專家學(xué)者為什么愿意拿出大量的時(shí)間審稿呢 ?為期刊審稿是義務(wù) , 也是一份榮 耀,更是自我價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn) , 那就是為進(jìn)步做出了一份貢獻(xiàn)。審稿人都是志愿提供服務(wù) 而不計(jì)報(bào)酬。當(dāng)然 ,通過審稿還會(huì)得到其他好處 ,(1) 首先是精神上的收獲 , 能夠增加 科學(xué)知識(shí) , 體驗(yàn)科學(xué)交流和論爭(zhēng)的樂趣 ;(2) 最新的研究進(jìn)展在發(fā)表之前就有機(jī)會(huì)看 到(不亦快哉 !);(3) 通過對(duì)照其他審稿人的評(píng)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(cuò)誤 , 可以學(xué)習(xí)如何寫出更有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的稿件 ;(5) 會(huì)得到編輯的尊敬 ,甚或有機(jī)會(huì)被邀請(qǐng)加入學(xué)會(huì)或編委會(huì) ; 例如美國(guó)呼吸與危重

2、監(jiān)護(hù) 雜志(AJRCCM編) 委會(huì)的任命 , 就是完全根據(jù)審稿人的審稿是否中肯、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)、及時(shí)。一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的審稿人又有什么特征呢 ? Black 等曾對(duì)英國(guó)雜志 (BMJ)的審稿人進(jìn) 行過評(píng)價(jià) , 其目的是想明確高水平審稿人的特征 , 特別是在審稿花費(fèi)時(shí)間和審回時(shí)間 方面。他們對(duì) BMJ的 420 份稿件的審稿人進(jìn)行了調(diào)查 ,2 位編輯和稿件的責(zé)任作者 對(duì)審稿質(zhì)量進(jìn)行獨(dú)立評(píng)估。結(jié)果編輯和論文作者的評(píng)估都顯示 , 經(jīng)過流行病學(xué)或統(tǒng) 計(jì)學(xué)培訓(xùn)是提供高質(zhì)量評(píng)閱的審稿人的唯一顯著性相關(guān)因素。在編輯的質(zhì)量評(píng)估中 年輕是高質(zhì)量評(píng)閱的獨(dú)立預(yù)測(cè)因素。評(píng)審花費(fèi)的時(shí)間與審稿質(zhì)量的提高相關(guān) , 但超 過 3 小時(shí)則無更大

3、意義。通常認(rèn)為 , 正在從事研究工作的人員、擁有學(xué)術(shù)職位者、 科研資助團(tuán)體成員 ,應(yīng)該會(huì)提供更高質(zhì)量的審稿 , 但令人意外的是 , 這項(xiàng)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(duì)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(píng)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(xué)和統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)訓(xùn)練的、年齡在 40 歲左右的審稿人。那么年輕學(xué)者如何學(xué)習(xí)、提高審稿技能呢 ?最重要的是在實(shí)踐中提高 , 就是通 過審稿提高審稿水平。認(rèn)真研讀自己投稿得回的評(píng)審意見 , 以學(xué)習(xí)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

4、有益反饋。對(duì)于有條件的年輕學(xué)者 , 可以替自己的上級(jí) (例如老師、上級(jí)醫(yī)師等 )草 擬審稿意見 , 由此可得到更為全面的訓(xùn)練和提高。做好審稿工作需要什么 ?第一是能動(dòng)性。對(duì)同行要有絕對(duì)的責(zé)任感 , 堅(jiān)信通過 同行評(píng)閱認(rèn)定的高水準(zhǔn)的文獻(xiàn) , 對(duì)科學(xué)進(jìn)步是至關(guān)重要的。要珍惜這樣的機(jī)會(huì) , 審閱 一篇好文章 ,即得到知識(shí) ,又得到樂趣 ,不亞于參加一場(chǎng)研討會(huì)。審稿的質(zhì)量具有重 要的感染力 , 可影響到作者的學(xué)術(shù)態(tài)度和學(xué)術(shù)行為。其次是要具備科學(xué)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(xiàng)艱巨的任務(wù) , 需要 兩項(xiàng)科學(xué)技能 ,一是對(duì)文獻(xiàn)有全面掌握 ,即熟悉進(jìn)展 ,又熟悉經(jīng)典

5、;二是掌握相關(guān)的科 學(xué)知識(shí),能夠?qū)⒖评砗涂茖W(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)應(yīng)用到新的科學(xué)研究中。當(dāng)然 , 審稿人也會(huì)碰到自己 不熟悉的知識(shí)點(diǎn) ,這時(shí)可以向他人請(qǐng)教、學(xué)習(xí) ,或者謝絕審稿 ,請(qǐng)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(dāng)大的智力投入, 又不能很快得到審稿人所在學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)或同行的認(rèn)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(duì)審稿人會(huì)有一些負(fù)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(dá)清楚的評(píng)審意見 , 能夠提高稿件的科學(xué)性和易讀性 ,能夠增加作者的知識(shí) , 提高作者從事和報(bào)道科學(xué)研 究的能力。審稿時(shí)應(yīng)該對(duì)作者及其

6、工作充滿敬意 , 要耐心、客觀公正地閱讀 , 對(duì)新觀 點(diǎn)新方法持開放態(tài)度 , 但又不能“放水”。提出的意見要有正當(dāng)理由 , 觀點(diǎn)表達(dá)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(dāng)然需要 時(shí)間。如果只讀一遍 , 恐怕會(huì)錯(cuò)失重要的深入看法。在提出全面的、明確的觀點(diǎn)之 前,常常需要反復(fù)斟酌。不同稿件需要的時(shí)間可能不同 ,有的 3個(gè)小時(shí)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(huì)與自己的工作、甚至生活發(fā)生 沖突, 看病、科研、申請(qǐng)課題、休假等等 ,不一而足。無論如何 , 既然接受了審稿邀請(qǐng) , 你就必須拿出足夠的時(shí)間。具體到審稿過程或步驟

7、 , 每個(gè)人可能都有自己的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。但一般來說 ,可分為接 受任務(wù)、閱讀和評(píng)價(jià)、提出建議和撰寫審稿意見等步驟。1. 接受審稿邀請(qǐng)對(duì)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(shí)間 認(rèn)真審閱時(shí) , 可考慮接受邀請(qǐng)。對(duì)于自己不熟悉的專業(yè)領(lǐng)域 ,應(yīng)果斷拒絕。只要你說 明拒絕的理由 , 編輯不會(huì)認(rèn)為你對(duì)審稿不感興趣。2. 閱讀和評(píng)價(jià)先花點(diǎn)時(shí)間看看摘要 , 初步了解在實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)、方法、結(jié)果和結(jié)論中 ,你需要看 的重點(diǎn)是什么 , 特別要看出作者認(rèn)為其工作的重點(diǎn)是什么。提出一個(gè)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(xué)的論文、是病例總結(jié)還是病例報(bào)道 ?與 以往的論文相

8、比 , 本文的新意是什么 ?然后再仔細(xì)閱讀全文 ,要看懂;遇到看不懂的地方 ,要分析原因 ,是科學(xué)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(shí)的科學(xué)問題包括 : 互相矛盾、 結(jié)論無根據(jù)、因果關(guān)系 （ 歸因）不當(dāng)、不恰當(dāng)推論、循環(huán)推理、糾纏于瑣碎問題等。 統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)問題也屬于此類。至于寫作問題 ,有的是不會(huì)寫或?qū)懖缓?, 對(duì)此應(yīng)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(zhǔn)確、專業(yè)術(shù)語不規(guī)范、縮略語 不規(guī)范。行文要求條理清楚 , 讓讀者跟著自己的思路走。更重要的是要看實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì) 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(yàn)性預(yù)測(cè)、結(jié)論等是 否完善。重要問題不

9、應(yīng)不予以交代 , 例如方法學(xué)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(huì)經(jīng)常碰到一些 “低級(jí)“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(shí)間繼續(xù)閱讀第二遍 , 此時(shí) 要對(duì)稿件做出評(píng)價(jià)。首先評(píng)價(jià)稿件的科學(xué)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(xué)性是否正確 ,特 別是推論 （論證）的質(zhì)量、科理和知識(shí)的運(yùn)用。一篇論文是否重要 , 不一定那么容易 判斷。是應(yīng)用性研究還是基

10、礎(chǔ)性研究 , 就要考慮到對(duì)本刊的讀者是否適宜。不要考 慮作者的學(xué)術(shù)地位和名氣 ;受尊敬的科學(xué)家和朋友的投稿 , 審稿人往往對(duì)其中的弱點(diǎn) 不愿（不敢?）提出挑戰(zhàn) ,會(huì)感到猶豫不決 ,這對(duì)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(huì)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(shí)。其次要評(píng)價(jià)稿件的寫作情況 , 表達(dá)是否清晰、準(zhǔn)確、完整 , 這些問題一定要提 出來; 如果審稿人看起來費(fèi)勁 ,更何況其他讀者 ?當(dāng)然不同作者的寫作風(fēng)格可有不同 , 倒也不必千篇一律?？赐旰笠獓L試提出建議了。給編輯的建議要反映出 :(1) 對(duì)稿件最終處理意見 的初步看法 , 即接受還是退稿 ;(

11、2) 在做出上述決定之前 ,你認(rèn)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(xué)性 不夠強(qiáng), 那么你就要提出如何改進(jìn)其科學(xué)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(shí)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(duì)提出的問題給予答復(fù)。對(duì)于可能存在嚴(yán)重 缺點(diǎn)的稿件 , 要特別注意給作者答復(fù)的機(jī)會(huì) ;有時(shí)他們會(huì)很快將問題解決 , 有時(shí)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(gè)部分, 文字要精煉 , 一

12、般不超過二三百字 :(1) 概要, 用三四句話說明研究的主題、基本方 法、主要發(fā)現(xiàn) , 解讀(釋義)作者的主要結(jié)論。這對(duì)于梳理審稿人的思路很重要 , 同時(shí) 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(píng)價(jià)和問題。 (3) 建議,例如:本 文提出了什么新的觀點(diǎn)、有何新的發(fā)現(xiàn)、值得進(jìn)一步修改 , 等等。給作者的意見 (致作者)要更加具體 ,字?jǐn)?shù)更多一些?；驹瓌t是 ,審稿人發(fā)現(xiàn) 的問題,必須對(duì)作者說清楚 ;不要給予表揚(yáng) ,因?yàn)楦寮鼙唤邮?,作者就夠高興的了 ; 避免指責(zé) ,這完全沒有必要 , 作者反而會(huì)認(rèn)為審稿人輕視別人、失禮。每一篇投稿都是同行長(zhǎng)期工作的成果 , 對(duì)他們來說這意

13、味著職稱、學(xué)位、科研基金、成果、學(xué)術(shù) 地位, 或許還有獎(jiǎng)金。給作者的意見同樣包括 3個(gè)部分。 (1)概要同“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(diǎn) 如何準(zhǔn)備回復(fù)或修改。 (2) 主要評(píng)價(jià)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(duì)照組不恰當(dāng) , ”要具體指出問題和理 由。對(duì)于寫作上的問題 , 審稿人有時(shí)也許會(huì)感到“生氣” :文章沒寫好就投稿 ,太不 禮貌了(甚至?xí)f,太不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)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(duì)于實(shí)在太差的 , 要明

14、確告訴作者請(qǐng)其上級(jí) (導(dǎo)師) 或有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的同事 幫著修改。 (3) 次要問題 , 例如冗余、符號(hào)使用不當(dāng)、錯(cuò)別字等 ,審稿人一般會(huì)籠統(tǒng) 地提及需要修改 ,但如果能按頁碼和分行逐一列出 , 作者肯定會(huì)對(duì)你的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)態(tài)度和責(zé) 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(gè)人審稿都要寫出相應(yīng)的意見。當(dāng)意見 是同意接受時(shí) , 無論指的毛病有多犀利還是什么 , 作者都能認(rèn)可。但是當(dāng)意見是拒絕 時(shí), 作者本能的反應(yīng)就是意見寫的太過火了 ,或者根本不是針對(duì)論文的。那么應(yīng)該如 何審稿才能盡量避免引起作者的強(qiáng)烈不滿呢。很多人都有自己的觀點(diǎn) , 我說幾個(gè)自 認(rèn)為很重要的意見 :1、不要因?yàn)閷懽魉讲?/p>

15、就隨便拒稿。眾所周知 , 從小學(xué)、初中、高中開始 , 很 多學(xué)生都有偏科的現(xiàn)象 , 特別是很多數(shù)學(xué)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(shí)候有的人的表述還是不好。 因此這種情況下 ,如果作者的論文有新意 , 只要寫作能夠把自己的觀點(diǎn)表述清楚 , 就 盡量建議接受 , 指出作者對(duì)文稿認(rèn)真修改即可。2、不要故意寫作者沒有做什么實(shí)驗(yàn)或模擬而拒稿。很多人做研究的時(shí)候, 都喜歡把問題簡(jiǎn)單化 ,盡量減少某些考慮因素。因此在審稿的時(shí)候 , 只要作者針對(duì)某個(gè) 因素進(jìn)行了透徹的研究 , 千萬不能因?yàn)闆]有考慮某些方面而拒稿。這里可能舉例說 明一下:比如做材

16、料研究時(shí) , 由于很多材料都是非球形 , 但是做數(shù)值模擬的時(shí)候?yàn)榱?簡(jiǎn)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(shí) , 要新意, 那么就要接受該稿子。可能在審稿意見里建議作者繼續(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,但是沒有任何新的工作 , 這樣的稿子一定要堅(jiān)持拒稿。審稿的時(shí)候 , 經(jīng)?？?到很多文章中大部分的實(shí)驗(yàn)和公式都是在國(guó)外或者國(guó)內(nèi)好刊物上發(fā)表了 , 這樣的稿 件實(shí)質(zhì)上屬于一稿多發(fā) ,遇到這種情況 ,千萬不能因?yàn)樽髡呤桥Ｈ?,或者說別人的成 果已經(jīng)發(fā)表在牛刊物上就不好拒絕。一定要保證不能讓人隨便灌水。4

17、、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。很多時(shí)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(yīng)的結(jié)果。這個(gè)時(shí)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?yàn)橛X得 自己也能進(jìn)行這樣的工作而拒稿。5、不能因?yàn)榉磳?duì)自己的觀點(diǎn)而拒稿。很多研究生在寫前言和綜述的時(shí)候, 經(jīng)常引用一些大牛的綜述 , 在綜述里面經(jīng)常會(huì)有某個(gè)觀點(diǎn)和實(shí)驗(yàn)存在某些問題和缺點(diǎn) , 如果這個(gè)時(shí)候你審的稿子中正好說到了自己的缺點(diǎn) , 這個(gè)時(shí)候千萬不要生氣 ,一定要 看看作者說自己的缺點(diǎn)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

18、不要在意作者。一般審稿意見至少要包含三條 :(1) 簡(jiǎn)要描述論文的研究?jī)?nèi)容和意義 ,并作出評(píng)價(jià)。對(duì)于其比較好的部分 , 要給 于肯定。(2) 針對(duì)文章中的內(nèi)容和結(jié)果 , 指出其具體的不足之處 , 并談?wù)勀愕目捶āＮ恼?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(píng)價(jià) , 接受, 修改,還是拒收以下是從一個(gè)朋友轉(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(diǎn)無輕重主次之分。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 not

19、ed 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 expl

20、anation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould 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 overstat

21、ed. 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 prob

22、lem 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 AB的證明 ,verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so

23、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 file with Instruct

24、ions 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 are given under the Instructions and Forms button in the upper right-hand corner of the scre

25、en.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 sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.The au

26、thors 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 ar

27、e 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 have someone competent

28、 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(lì) Encouragement from reviewers:I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting. Whi

29、chThere is continued interest in your manuscript titled you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.審稿意見的一些套話1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable i

30、nterest. 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 clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.3. Although the

31、se 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 findings to specialist journal such as4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some

32、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 someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made

33、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 correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good kn

34、owledge 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 parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.9. Preliminary experiments only have be

35、en 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 incubation is poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?完整模板 : 論文審稿Title: Fault diagnosi

36、s research based on time-frequency analysis method in rotor systemsJournal of Sound and VibrationDear student ,We have now received comments on your manuscript from the reviewers (reports included below). Please revise your manuscript according to the referees suggestions and detail all the changes

37、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 on your manuscript, it will need to be sent out for re-review.If you do decide to revise the paper, we

38、 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;(2) A separate list of the revisions made to the manuscript.It is important that you address all the iss

39、ues 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 files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be fina

40、lly 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 toYour username is: *Your password is:On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled Submissions Needing Revision. You will find your submissio

41、n record there.Yours sincerely,Richard BerrymanEditorial Office (Australasia)Journal of Sound and VibrationReviewers comments:Reviewer #1: Comments on JSV-D-06-01203Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency method in rotor systemsBy: , and The paper presents an application of reassigne

42、d 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 significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in

43、 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 present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution inmethodological research.2. For the above reason, the presentation sho

44、uld be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.3. The title of the pa

45、per should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. 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 relat

46、ed to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationa

47、ry and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system 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

48、 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 authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than t

49、he 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 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

50、:The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, ex

51、plain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other timefrequency methods.In fact, it is possible 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 nea

52、rly 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