1、.'英文論文審稿意見(jiàn)匯總1、目標(biāo)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 of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分

2、。 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(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

3、成果 /不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)：The conclusions are overstated.For example, the study did not showif 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

4、、對(duì)研究問(wèn)題的定義：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫(xiě)literature review:Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、對(duì) claim, 如 A B 的證明， verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previousl

5、y known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10 、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問(wèn)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

6、a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples. Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared andformatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" bu

7、tton in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12 、語(yǔ)言問(wèn)題（出現(xiàn)最多的問(wèn)題）：有關(guān)語(yǔ)言的審稿人意見(jiàn)： It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise intechnical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results o

8、f 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

9、 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 str ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native lang

10、uage 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.來(lái)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 e

11、dited because the subject is interesting. There is continued interest in your manuscript titled " " which you subm itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials. The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.老外寫(xiě)的英文綜述文章的審稿意見(jiàn);.&#

12、39;Ms. Ref. No.: *Title: *Materials Science and EngineeringDear 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, Iwould be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance, re

13、viewers' comments are appended below.Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methodsfor thesynthesis of Agnanoparticles.As such,the matter is of interest, howeverthe paper suffers for two serious limits:1) the overall quality of the English language is rathe

14、r poor;2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also thesynthesis 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 manuscript could

15、be accepted for publication in this journal這是一篇全過(guò)程我均比較了解的投稿，稿件的內(nèi)容我認(rèn)為是相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的，中文版投稿于業(yè)內(nèi)有較高影響的某核心期刊，并很快得到發(fā)表。其時(shí)我作為審稿人之一，除了提出一些修改建議外，還特建議了5 篇應(yīng)增加的參考文獻(xiàn)，該文正式發(fā)表時(shí)共計(jì)有參考文獻(xiàn)25 篇。作者或許看到 審稿意見(jiàn) 還不錯(cuò)， 因此決意嘗試向美國(guó)某學(xué)會(huì)主辦的一份英文刊投稿。幾經(jīng)修改和補(bǔ)充后，請(qǐng)一位英文 “功底 " 較好的中國(guó)人翻譯，投稿后約3 周，便返回了三份審稿意見(jiàn)。從英文 刊的反饋意見(jiàn)看， 這篇稿件中最嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題是文獻(xiàn)綜述和引用不夠，其次是 語(yǔ)言表達(dá)方

16、面的欠缺，此外是論證過(guò)程 和結(jié)果展示形式方面的不足。感想：一篇好的論文，從內(nèi)容到形式都需要精雕細(xì)琢。附 1：中譯審稿意見(jiàn)審稿意見(jiàn) 1(1) 英文 表達(dá)太差，盡管意思大致能表達(dá)清楚，但文法錯(cuò)誤太多。(2) 文獻(xiàn)綜述較差，觀點(diǎn)或論斷應(yīng)有文獻(xiàn)支持。(3)論文 讀起來(lái)像是 XXX的廣告，不知道作者與XXX是否沒(méi)有關(guān)聯(lián)。(4)該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多 XX采取此模式 （如美國(guó)地球物理學(xué)會(huì)），作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析XXX運(yùn)作模式的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。(5)該模式也不是作者所說(shuō)的那樣成功 ( 審稿人結(jié)合論文 中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析 )審稿意見(jiàn) 2(1) 缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)引用 ( 如 ) 。(2) 寫(xiě)作質(zhì)量達(dá)不

17、到美國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。審稿意見(jiàn) 3(1) 作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻(xiàn)。(2) 缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。(3) 需要采用表格和圖件形式展示 ( 數(shù)據(jù) ) 材料。;.'Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by two reviewers, and their comments are as follows:The Comments by the First ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 68Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restric

18、ted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types Corresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments: In the present work

19、 the authors introduce a new energy-based aromaticity measure. Referred as restricted geometry optimization, the extra stabilization energy (ESE) is calculated by means of an energy scheme in which the different double bonds are localized. This methodology is applied to different sets of aromatic sy

20、stems, and the results are compared to previous already existing schemes. This procedure seems to work better than previous ones, however it must be underlined that with a much greater complexity. It avoids having to choose a reference structure, and it is worth noticing that benzene appears to be t

21、he most aromatic system. Thus the method presented might mean a new contribution to the different aromacity criteria, however before acceptance for publication I would recommend important changes to be taken into account in the manuscript.The new method used is not presented in a comprehensible way.

22、 In the second paragraph of the Introduction the authors should already describe it, and not first presenting the results for benzene and not going into the method till the second section. The formulas used must be described precisely as well. So I would recommend that before acceptance the manuscri

23、pt should be rewritten in order to make it more comprehensible not only to physical chemists but also to the experimental chemical community, and at the same time to improve the English used.Other minor points are:- First line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in org

24、anic chemistry, but most of organic compounds are not aromatic.- Introduction, line 4: notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, however geometry-based (HOMA), magnetic-based (NICS) and electronic-based (SCI, PDI) methods are also important, and this point should be po

25、inted out.- Section 3.1, last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2? This should be pointed out in the manuscript.- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8.;.'Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006*The Comments by

26、 the Second ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 67Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate StabilizationEnergies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author:YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable,

27、but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments:Comments on the manuscript "Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types" by Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng BaoAuthors propose a restr

28、icted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity. The approach is interesting and has certain merits. My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand, mainly because of poor English. A substantial revisio

29、n in this respect would be beneficiary.;.'各位：新的惡戰(zhàn)開(kāi)始了。投往JASA 的文章沒(méi)有被拒，但被批得很兇。盡管如此，審稿人和編輯還是給了我們一個(gè)修改和再被審的機(jī)會(huì)。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)珍惜這個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)， 不急不火。我們首先要有個(gè)修改的指導(dǎo)思想。大家先看看審稿意見(jiàn)吧。- 郵件原件 -Manuscript #07-04147:Editor's Comments:This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayedabove. Your manuscript

30、has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers,each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. Themain points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent acrossthe reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many s

31、uggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introductionneeds to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you proposeto answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale for selecting this unusualcondition must be clear. Your discussion should focus on how the questions have beena

32、nsweredand what they mean.The resultssectionis heavilydependenton statisticalanalyses that did not satisfy the reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved andperhaps consolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readerswould take your word that these were nonsense senten

33、ces, or perhaps you could simply cite some other work where they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first results as late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by the reviewers about the design. The most notable (but not the

34、only problem) is that there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be compared at nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that at least floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely tosignificantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older l

35、isteners are tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance was extremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-masker ratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the older listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been sa

36、lvaged if you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratio for the older listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it.I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that it;.'precludes publication of t!heolder versus younger data

37、in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscript and the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impression comparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensation levels at which the older and younger group

38、s listened (if the target was fixed at 56 dBA).The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated tho

39、se conditions with younger subjects in your lab, and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of data were different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is not varying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviews point out, your conditions pr

40、esent brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target, may change the energetic masking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the same time. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performance substantially in quiet, they may well in n

41、oise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very different than those when the target is at v!erylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedence effect, parti

42、cularly the perception of "echoes" at the longer delays. Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breaking apart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and

43、 Parks (1961). To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions. However, it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.I think the

44、re are several options for you to consider: (1) If you think it is very important to publish all the data you have right now, you could withdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.(2) You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor

45、 effect with the older listeners and submit a revision that includes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity of the older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you, I don't think this is a promising alternative. (3) You could collect more data on older listene

46、rs under more favorable conditions where performance is better.;.'With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such data were collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, it could be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision wouldbe s

47、ent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that a manuscript even with these new data would be judged favorably by the reviewers. (4) Youcould drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit a much shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuse

48、s on the noise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking from the data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale forwhat your specific question is about release from masking, why your

49、conditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worry about how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. (5) You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider a more straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask wit

50、h older listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternatives described will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whatever you decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully as they have gone out of their way to provide you with

51、 suggestions on improving the presentation.Sincerely yours,Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments:Reviewer #1 Evaluations:Reviewer #1 (Good Scientific Quality):No. See attachedReviewer #1 (Appropriate Journal):YesReviewer #1 (Satisfactory English/References):No.;.'Reviewer #1 (Tables/Figures Adequa

52、te):No.Reviewer #1 (Concise):No.Reviewer #1 (Appropriate Title and Abstract):No, because the term "interval-target interval" in the title required further explanation.MS#: 07-04147Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informational masking and energetic masking

53、 of speech in young adults and older adults." This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger and older listeners, as a function of inter-target interval (ITI) in two masker conditions (speech masking and noise masker). The same target speech was presented from two diffe

54、rent locations simultaneously in two different maskers, one from each location (L or R). Results show that release from informational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners when the ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:•

55、 The general impression is that the introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained.• The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping from place to place. For example, t

56、he authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberation and the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-page to talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.• In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of the study and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentioned that "the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the whole precedence-operation range.can induce a r