-
审稿意见内容详解
论文投稿是很多作者关心的事。审稿意见怎么写这个问题，对于第一次担任审稿人的学者来说可能比较陌生，不知道从哪几个角度来写。今天小编要说的就是审稿意见的标准结构，三条基本要求和英文论文常见的审稿意见表达都整理好了。感兴趣的朋友们和小编一同来下文看看吧
一、一般审稿意见至少要包含三条1.简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。
2.针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。
3.给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。
二、英文论文审稿意见汇总以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。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。Itis noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertisein technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar,spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study areclear 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 experimentsshould 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 showifthe side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5.对hypothesis的清晰界定：Ahypothesis 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 problem8.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 previouslyknown work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is animprovement 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
论文发表全流程与关键环节解析
当你最后整理完一篇论文并经过精心的修改后，不要以为事件已经完成，你需要做的是耐心地研究每份期刊的提交要求。在决定去哪种期刊投稿后，有必要根据期刊数量，格式要求，标题要求，中文和英文摘要完整修改格式。这件事情非常重要，关系你到底能不能被他们收稿。最后当你都准备好了，投稿等回复的过程又是漫长的，如果对方对你的论文提出意见，你一定要根据他们提的意见一条条的修改，并说明修改详情，一定不要偷懒。