英文期刊审稿状态
1. Submitted to Journal
当上传结束后，显示的状态是Submitted to Journal，这个状态是自然形成的无需处理。
2. With editor
如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑，就先到主编那里，主编会分派给别的编辑。这当中就会有另两个状态：
①Editor assigned编辑分派
②Editor Declined Invitation编辑拒绝邀请，这时主编不得不将投稿文章重新分派给其它编辑。
3. Reviewer(s) invited
说明编辑已接手处理，正在邀请审稿人中。有时该过程会持续很长时间，如果其中原因是编辑一直没有找到合适的审稿人，这时投稿者可以向编辑推荐审稿人。
4. Under review
审稿人的意见已上传，说明审稿人已接受审稿，正在审稿中，这应该是一个漫长的等待（期刊通常会限定审稿人审稿时间，一般为一个月左右）。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看编辑的处理情况。如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。
5. required review completed
审稿结束，等编辑处理，该过程短则几天，长则无期，科学堂有一篇文章出现required review completed 状态已近一个月了，还是没有消息。
6. Decision in Process
到了这一步就快要有结果了，编辑开始考虑是给修改还是直接拒，当然也有可能直接接受的，但可能性很小，呵呵。
7. Minor revision/Major revision
小修/大修，这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的（因为修改后一般会再发给审稿人看，所以一定要细心的回答每一个审稿人的每一个问题，态度要谦逊，要让审稿人觉得他提的每个问题都很有水准的，然后针对他的问题，一个一个的做出答复，能修改的就修改，不能修改的给出理由，而且都要列出来，文章的哪一段哪一行修改了最好都说出来，记住：给审稿人减少麻烦就是给你自己减少麻烦！另注：有时，审稿人会在修改意见里隐讳里说出要你仔细阅读某几篇文献，这时可要注意了，其中某些文章可能就是评审者自己发表的，这时你最好在你的修改稿中加以引用），修改后被拒绝的例子也多不胜数的。
8. Revision Submitted to Journal
修改后重新提交，等待编辑审理。
9. Accepted
如果不要再审，只是小修改，编辑看后会马上显示这个状态，但如果要再审也会有上面的部分状态。一步会比较快，但也有慢的。看杂志的。
10. Rejected
相信大家见了Rejected，都会很郁闷。但也不要太灰心，耐心将评审意见看完，一般评审者会给出有益的建议，相信看后你会有所收获。
英文期刊审稿意见模板
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, 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、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 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、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： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、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A＞B的证明，verification: 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、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 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-hand corner of the screen. 12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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, 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、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 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.
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿意见汇总 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is no ted that your manu script n eeds careful edit ing by some one 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, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. . Furthermore, an expla natio n of why the authors did these various experime nts should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的ratio nale: Also, there are few expla nati ons of the rati on ale for the study desig n. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The con clusi ons are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.
SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。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, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods 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 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、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： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、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A＞B的证明，verification: 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. ：题问度谨严、10． 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 file with Instructions for Authors which shows examples. ◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared
一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】
一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】最近在审一篇英文稿第一次做这个工作还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿我想不会枪毙它的给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。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 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、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 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、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Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear write one section to define the problem 8、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 previously 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 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-hand 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 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 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 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. 作为审稿人本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开冒风险啊但我觉得有些意见值得广大投稿人注意就贴出来吧当然有关审稿人的名字Email文章题名信息等就都删除了以免造成不必要的麻烦希望朋友们多评价其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分个人认为文章还是有一些创新的所以作为
英文审稿意见
在比较高级别的会议、期刊等，评审系统中包括给编辑的和给作者的评审意见。本文就这两部分评审以及进行汇总 第一部分：给作者的审稿意见 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, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods 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 conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show
一些英文审稿意见的模板
一些英文审稿意见的模板【转】 来源：Elaine 王倩的日志 最近导师让我帮忙审了两篇英文文章，觉得写的都不怎么样，顿时觉得自己的也不太差吧嘿嘿。但是怎么写评审还是有经验需要学习，自己也不能写的太不专业。不过我的意见也不过是给老师写意见的一个参考，具体能不能过我就毋须多言了。 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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, 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、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 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、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： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem
英文论文审稿意见范文
This paper addresses an important and interesting problem -automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo. The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts. Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts. The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo. Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved: (1) The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paper in Section 1. (2) In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain a value very close to on GACS if all its accounts have entirely copied their own texts, images or contact information”. However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not considered when computing GACS. (3) In Algorithm 1 on Pg. 17, it seems that “t=t+1” should be added after line 6. (4) I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in Section 9. (5) There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.
英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总 2011-04-24 19:24 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your m anus cript needs careful editing by s om eone with expertise in technical Englis h editing paying particular attention to Englis h gramm ar, spelling, and s entence s tructure s o that the goals and results of the s tudy are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 ◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and s tatis tical me thods us ed in the s tudy. ◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experim ents s hould be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Als o, there are few explanations of the rationale for the s tudy des ign. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclus ions are overs tated. For exam ple, the s tudy did not s how if the s ide effects from initial copper burs t can be avoid with the polym er form ulation. 5、对hypothes is的清晰界定： A h ypothesis needs to be pres ented。 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 volum e ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Tr y to s et the problem dis c uss ed in this paper in m ore clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application propos ed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experim ental com paris on of the algorithm with previous ly known work, s o it is imposs ible to judge whether the algorithm is an im provem ent on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is eas ier than the prim itive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆In addition, the lis t of refere nces is not in our s tyle. It is close but not com pletely correct. I have at tached a pdf file with "Ins tructions for Authors" which shows exam ples.
一些英文审稿意见及回复的
一些英文审稿意见的模板 好东西 原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博 一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。 第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major 而不是minor 本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了majorrevision ，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue 的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue 。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A, B, C, D做比较，补充大量 实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue 。在Argue 的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对,他提出的方法也很好,但本文的重点是blablabla ,跟他说的不是一回 事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重,象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion ,这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子,编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四,聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见,如果是minor ,意见只有寥寥数行,那当然会情 不自禁的一蹴而就,一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候,问题在于要不要马上投回去了？ 我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major ，建议至少放一
Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)
Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)
Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX: Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again. 1.Title: XXX 2.Manuscript type: Article 3.Corresponding author: XXX 4.Full author names: XXX Sincerely, Prof. XXX School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, XX Key Laboratory of Controllable Chemistry Reaction & Material Chemical Engineering, XX University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China. 2015-03-05
审稿意见模板
如何学习审稿 专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务,也是一份荣耀,更是自我价值的实现,那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然,通过审稿还会得到其他好处,(1)首先是精神上的收获,能够增加科学知识,体验科学交流和论争的乐趣;(2)最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到(不亦快哉!);(3)通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见,可提高自己的审稿技能;(4)通过发现论文中的错误,可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件;(5)会得到编辑的尊敬,甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会;例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志(AJRCCM)编委会的任命,就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。 一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志(BMJ)的审稿人进行过评价,其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征,特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查,2位编辑和稿件的责任作者 对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示,经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中,年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关,但超过3小时则无更大意义。通常认为,正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员,应该会提供更高质量的审稿,但令人意外的是,这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是,要发现优秀的审稿人,只有不断试用新人,评估他们的表现,然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。 那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高,就是通 过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见,以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见,发现新的视角,得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者,可以替自己的上级(例如老师、上级医师等)草拟审稿意见,由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。
SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总
英文论文审稿意见汇总 以下12 点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审 稿人意见构成。 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, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods 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 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、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： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、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A> B 的证明，verification: 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、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
完整版一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
完美格式整理版 一些英文审稿意见的模板 最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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, 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、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 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、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： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem