1、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 cl
2、ear 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 rational
3、e 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 r
4、ationale 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 AB 的证明，verification: There is no exp
5、erimental 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
6、 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 “
7、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 th
8、at 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.
9、 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 En
10、glish 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.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers: I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greate
11、r 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 of publication.老外写的英文
12、综述文章的审稿意见Ms. Ref. No.: *Title: * Materials Science and Engineering Dear Dr. *, Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. For your g
13、uidance, reviewers comments are appended below. Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits: 1) the overall quality of the English languag
14、e is rather poor; 2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ; Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manu
15、script could be accepted for publication in this journal 这是一篇全过程我均比较了解的投稿，稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的，中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某核心期刊，并很快得到发表。其时我作为审稿人之一，除了提出一些修改建议外，还特建议了 5 篇应增加的参考文献，该文正式发表时共计有参考文献 25 篇。作者或许看到审稿意见还不错，因此决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿。几经修改和补充后，请一位英文“功底“较好的中国人翻译，投稿后约 3 周，便返回了三份审稿意见。从英文刊的反馈意见看，这篇稿件中最严重的问题是文献综述和引用不够，其次是语言
16、表达方面的欠缺，此外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的不足。感想：一篇好的论文，从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢。附 1：中译审稿意见审稿意见1(1) 英文表达太差，尽管意思大致能表达清楚，但文法错误太多。(2) 文献综述较差，观点或论断应有文献支持。(3) 论文读起来像是 XXX 的广告，不知道作者与 XXX 是否没有关联。(4) 该模式的创新性并非如作者所述，目前有许多 XX 采取此模式（如美国地球物理学会），作者应详加调查并分析 XXX 运作模式的创新点。(5) 该模式也不是作者所说的那样成功(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)审稿意见2(1) 缺少直接相关的文献引用(如)。(2) 写作质量达不到美
17、国学术期刊的标准。审稿意见3(1) 作者应着重指出指出本人的贡献。(2) 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析。(3) 需要采用表格和图件形式展示(数据)材料。附 2：英文审稿意见(略有删节)Reviewer: 1There are many things wrong with this paper.The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct.The literature review is poor. The paper is riddl
18、ed with assertions and claims that should be supported by references.The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX.The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Un
19、ion, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model.The model is also not as successful as the author claims. Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.Reviewe
20、r: 2The are two major problems with this paper:(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the “two-sided“ market literature including that directly related to (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides McCabe The general impression is that the introduction section isunnece
21、ssarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while someimportant terms and information are left unexplained. The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping fromplace to place. For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberationand the difference between older and
22、younger adults, than spent a full-pageto talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation. In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of thestudy and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentionedthat “the present study investigated whether changing the IT
23、I over the wholeprecedence-operation range.can induce a release of target speech fromspeech masking or noise masking.“ However, they did not explain how and whymanipulating ITI can address their questions, questions that were not clearly stated anywhere in the paper. No hypothesis was provided in th
24、e paper and no explanation was given regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results indifferent conditions can answer the questions under investigation. 2. Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate andprecise: Authors failed to provide results of statistical a
25、nalyses in manyoccasions. At the beginning of the result section for both the younger andolder groups, the authors should clearly present the number of factorsincluded in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor andwhich ones were within-subject factors. Main effects and interaction (
26、3-wayand 2-way) should also be reported clearly. Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses;however, no pvalue was reported. The authors should not use the term “marginally significant“. It iseither “significant“ or “nonsignificant“. I dont see p=0.084 is “marginallysignificant.“ W
27、hen you say percent release, do you mean percentage pointdifference between the 64 ms ITI and other ITI values? For example, in the statement “.therelease amount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition,.“, do you mean “31.9 percentage points“? 3. Baseline condition is questionable: The authors
28、failed to provide clear explanation of the results. Forexample, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking(on p.19) as “.the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percentdifference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identificat
29、ion at the ITI of 64 ms (the longest ITI in this study).“ It took me a while to understand what this means, and finally cameup with the interpretation (if my interpretation is correct) of the data for theauthors. It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms, the perceived spatial locationis between the two ma
30、skers (spatial separation). But when the ITI was 32and/or 64 ms, listeners heard two images (one from each side) and there wasno spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on eitherside. Therefore, according to the authors, the release from masking is theperformance difference betwe
31、en the ITI conditions when listeners heard onlyone image in a location different from the maskers, and the ITI conditionswhere two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have aproblem with the baseline condition (64 ms ITI in which two images wereperceived). If the listeners could n
32、ot fuse the image, did they hear a delay(echo) between the two targets? If so, the poor performance in the 64 mscondition can be partially due to the confusion/disruption induced by theecho in noise conditions in addition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and the masker. 4. Subjec
33、t recruitment criteria were unclear: The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study andclaimed that both groups had “clinically normal hearing.“ However, readingthe fine details of their hearing thresholds ( 45 dB HL between 125 and 4kHz), it is hard to accept that the hearing thresh
34、olds are within normallimits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hzand mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz (see Fig. 1) in thesesubjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results inrelation to the threshold differences between the two groups. The
35、 threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It isnecessary to provide individual threshold data (at least for the oldergroup) in a table format. 5. Language problem: I understand that English is not the authors native language. Itis recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-readi
36、ng themanuscript before submission. 6. Tables and Figures: Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presentedin Fig. 7 The authors should provide legends in the figures. The authors should provide error bars in the graphs in Fig 1. It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2 The a
37、uthors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis inFig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data. Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in thetext. Specific comments (this is by no means a complete list): p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen (1929) is not necessar
38、y. p.4 first Brungart et al. 2005). The discussion section wouldbenefit from a comparison of the results from these experiments. Thereshould be some mention of the general effect of ITI on speech-recognition,and some discussion about its cause and/or implications. (2) Age-related differences in spee
39、ch-recognition: I was not entirelyconvinced that the differences could not be adequately explained by acombination of elderly listeners increased susceptibility to energeticmasking, elderly listeners reduced ability to listen in the dips, andfloor/ceiling effects. These simple explanations should re
40、ceive moreemphasis. Once they have been ruled out, more emphasis should be given tothe apparent connection between the subjective results and thespeech-recognition results (around 32 ms ITI). There should be morediscussion about the meaning and importance of this interesting connection,and its impli
41、cations for elderly listeners, perhaps mentioning auditoryscene analysis. Its unfortunate that the elderly listeners were only tested for SNRs atwhich they had such poor speech recognition. (3) Age-related differences in subjective perception: Elderly listeners hadreduced echo-thresholds for speech
42、compared to young listeners. This seemsto be a novel result. If this section is to be included, further discussionof relevant literature should be included, and further description of themethod used to get these subjective responses. Perhaps this aspect could bepublished separately as a letter. Age-
43、related differences were described as temporal decline. If this termis to be used, it should perhaps be defined more carefully. Also, does itrefer to the age-related differences in dip-listening, age-relateddifferences in subjective perception, the interaction of subjectiveperception and speech-reco
44、gnition, or some combination of these? If it issome combination, there should be further argument that the phenomena arerelated, perhaps incorporating other temporal-decline results from theliterature. Overall, there is too much statistics and not enough interpretation of whatthe results mean. A maj
45、or re-write is required, focusing on the importantresults in the Results section, and interpreting them in the Discussionsection. - MINOR COMMENTS Pages 3-4 The second paragraph has somewhat flawed logic (the last sentence does notlogically follow from the preceding sentences) and the conclusion isn
46、tparticularly relevant to the rest of the paper. It could be omitted. Page 11, lines 14-15: You describe the elderly listeners audiograms asclinically normal (also in the abstract) yet above, you suggest that someof them have 45 dB HL hearing losses for some pure tones. You might want tospecify the
47、definition of normal-hearing that you are using. I would agreewith you (especially given their mean audiogram in Figure 1) that they arein the early stages of presbycusis, rather than normal-hearing. Describingthem as simply normal-hearing is perhaps misleading. Some indication ofthe range of the au
48、diograms would be useful. Page 12, line 11. It might be helpful to include an example sentence and itstranslation, to save the reader referring back to the cited papers. Page 13, lines 7-14. -log(1/f) is the same as log(f); and the sum of log(f)is equal to log(the product of f). Thus you have balanc
49、ed the product of theword frequencies. This seems an unusual measure: one nonsense word offrequency = 0 would not make the whole list unintelligible. Perhaps thereare more meaningful comparisons of the distribution of word frequencieswithin a list, or perhaps that would be too much detail. It would suffice tosay that the words were distributed pseudorandomly. Page 13, lines 20-21. Why was the 0.5-ms ITI not used for elderly listeners?Page 14. A short summary of the conditions would be useful, for ease ofreference. Pag
