Question 2: How to write the review comments?
The general review opinions shall include at least three items:
(1) Briefly describe the research content and significance of the paper, and make an evaluation. As far as it is concerned, we should give affirmation.
(2) According to the contents and results in the article, point out its specific shortcomings and talk about your own views. There are three deficiencies in the article: first, the results of the paper are incorrect or there are major errors; Second, the paper lacks important achievements; Third, the result of the paper is not perfect.
(3) Finally, give your comprehensive evaluation, accept, modify or reject.
Summary of comments on reviewing English papers
The following are the comments given by the editor in the process of English submission, and I would like to share them with you. 12 is insignificant. Each point consists of a summary title and the opinions of representative commentators.
1, the goal and result are not clear.
It should be noted that your manuscript needs to be carefully edited by professional English editors, paying special attention to English grammar, spelling and sentence structure, so that the objectives and results of the research can be made clear to readers at a glance.
2. The research method is not explained or not fully explained.
Generally speaking, there is a lack of explanation for repetition and statistical me.
Research methods.
In addition, explain why the author did these different experiments.
Should provide.
3. Basic principles of research and design:
In addition, there are few explanations about the basic principles of research design.
4. Exaggerated conclusion statement/exaggerated result/inaccuracy;
The conclusion is exaggerated. For example, studies have not shown that
If the polymer formula can avoid the side effects of the initial copper explosion.
5. Clear definition of hypothesis:
A hypothesis needs to be put forward.
6. Basic principles/definition concepts for concepts or tools:
What is the basic principle of film /SBF volume ratio?
7, the definition of research questions:
Trying to make the problems discussed in this paper more clear,
Write a section to define the problem.
8, how to highlight originality and how to write a complete literature review:
This theme is novel, but the proposed application is not novel.
9. Proof of claim, such as a > b, verification:
There is no experimental comparison between this algorithm and the previously known W.>& gt
Question 3: The comments mentioned the structure of the article. How to answer the question? After the article enters the review process, the results are nothing more than four situations: overhaul, minor repair, rejection and acceptance. Minor repairs and reception are the best endings (minor repairs are basically equivalent to reception). 40% of the papers were received after the overhaul. However, quite a few papers will be rejected. How to modify the rejection of SCI papers? This is a problem that puzzles researchers. After a large number of authors received the rejection news, many authors thought that the reviewers' opinions were reasonable, but the time was not allowed to be modified and they directly switched to other journals. This is very unreasonable. You should know that rejected papers will get similar comments after other reviewers try. It is better to start revising after receiving the rejection letter and solve the problem as soon as possible. Furthermore, sometimes commentators' opinions are not reasonable, so they can defend themselves appropriately. Therefore, most SCI papers can be rejected in the following ways: 1. If the article is rejected due to serious defects in data or analysis, such as insufficient sample size, etc. This kind of article can be put aside for a while, and then the revised article can be submitted to the corresponding journal after finding more extensive evidence to support it or having a clearer conclusion. Journal editors will consider accepting it again. Some authors are lucky enough to think that reviewers may not find data or analysis deficiencies after changing journals. This probability is very small, after all, the data processing and analysis methods of the paper determine the reliability of the results. 2. If the rejected paper is not lack of data or analysis, but lack of importance or innovation. Then, the author should carefully consider the opinions of the reviewers and seriously revise them, and try to switch to journals with lower impact factors. Different journals have different requirements for the innovation of papers, so it is necessary for authors to know their own publishing requirements before submitting papers, thus shortening the period of receiving papers. 3. If the manuscript is rejected because the reviewer is unfair in reviewing the manuscript, the author can plead politely. Reviewers sometimes make mistakes, not because of their professional knowledge, but because sometimes journal editors may not find expert reviewers in the author's field. Even if their comments seem unprofessional, we should defend them politely. If the author disagrees with the negation, he can put forward his own opinions to the editor or chief editor. As long as you are right, you should stick to it. This is the meaning of learning itself. Express your views tactfully in your reply. If the editor agrees with the author, the paper can re-enter a new round of peer review. 4. Find the reason from yourself and make a serious revision. Most authors' rejection stems from the unreasonable structure of the article, which leads to the lack of outstanding significance of the article. After rejection, focus on adjusting the structure of the article. Especially in the discussion part, many authors' discussions are a restatement of the results, but in fact, writing discussions should be the same as shopping, paying attention to shopping around. Only by comparing our own data with previous results can we highlight the advantages of this study. This requires the author to read more relevant literature and explore the relationship between other studies and this study.
Question 4: How to write my previous doctoral thesis? The reviewer wrote it according to the abstract in my paper, and it's OK to refine it. There should be some innovations written by yourself in the self-criticism book. You can refer to it Leonshane (station contact TA) first makes a brief summary of this paper, pointing out its main clues: research purpose, method, significance, innovation and so on. And then point out one or two biggest problems. If the problem is really fatal, it is recommended to modify it for a long time. Your tutor will check it for you after you finish it. If he doesn't study, I suggest you apply for a new tutor. . . Shuoyeb (station contact TA) 1. General evaluation project: the academic value and application value of the innovation achievements of the paper. The paper reflects the author's basic theory and professional level. 2. Comprehensive evaluation of all reviewers' academic comments on the paper (significance of topic selection, innovative achievements of the paper, academic value and application value, rationality and reliability of experimental results and calculated data, etc.). ) ... 3. Problems, deficiencies, opinions or suggestions in the paper. 2.....LBH535 (sTAtion contact ta) audit opinions should be combined point by point. The surface is the general situation, and the point at least reflects whether the reviewer has read the content carefully. At present, many papers are in the first instance, especially in social sciences. The comments are so general that people feel that they have not read them carefully. Qiu Qu _2002 12 (contact TA in the station) suggested to reply, and then simply write some comments. K 1000 1 (in-sTAtion contact ta) There is also an eight-part essay: The thesis shows that * * * has mastered solid and extensive basic theories and systematic and in-depth professional knowledge in the research field, and has (strong) independent ability to engage in scientific research, and the thesis (innovation) has reached the academic level of doctoral thesis. It is suggested to organize doctoral thesis defense. If there is a prompt in the nono2009 (Station Contact TA) review form, you can write a review opinion according to several items required by the prompt. Songjm 12 (conTAct ta in the station) read the requirements of the first two pages of the evaluation book and write a comment. Is the research question clear, the research goal clear, the method appropriate and the result obvious? Is the workload full and the content substantial? Wait, the best way is to find an old doctoral thesis and copy it down. Stereotyped writing ~ ~
Question 5: How to write the review opinions? In general, at least three articles should be written when writing the review opinions:
(1) Briefly describe the research content and significance of the paper, and make an evaluation. As far as it is concerned, we should give affirmation.
(2) According to the contents and results in the article, point out its specific shortcomings and talk about your own views. There are three deficiencies in the article: first, the results of the paper are incorrect or there are major errors; Second, the paper lacks important achievements; Third, the result of the paper is not perfect.
(3) Finally, give your comprehensive evaluation, accept, modify or reject.
It's best not to have strong feelings for comments. Even if you think that manuscript is good, as the responsible editor of that manuscript, you should try to restrain yourself and make an objective evaluation of your manuscript in a slightly relaxed tone.
The advantage of this is: leave room for the editor-in-chief. When he disagrees with your opinion, he won't resent your "extreme". At the same time, leave room for yourself. In case the manuscript is filmed, I won't be hit by too many emotions.
And our common peer review opinions are as follows:
1, the goal and result are not clear.
2. The research method is not explained or not fully explained.
3. Exaggerated conclusion statement/exaggerated result/inaccuracy.
4. Language problems (the most common problems)
The author gives some simple examples, which readers can expand according to their own needs.
Question 6: "How to write a review opinion" General review opinions should include at least three items:
(1) Briefly describe the research content and significance of the paper, and make an evaluation. As far as it is concerned, we should give affirmation.
(2) According to the contents and results in the article, point out its specific shortcomings and talk about your own views. There are three deficiencies in the article: first, the results of the paper are incorrect or there are major errors; Second, the paper lacks important achievements; Third, the result of the paper is not perfect.
(3) Finally, give your comprehensive evaluation, accept, modify or reject.
According to the above three points, you can give full play to them.
When it comes to peer review, many people think that the so-called peer review is entrusted by journal editors to make a correct evaluation of a paper. Everyone knows this. Why? Many bloggers may have participated in peer review to varying degrees. Then, how do journal editors choose peer reviewers and how do experts review papers, that is, how to correctly evaluate a paper and whether experts' peer review opinions will be adopted by editors. I think this is a topic that most bloggers are very concerned about.
Question 7: What should I do to edit such a review opinion? Rol: You don't need to template everything. You have written English articles. Normal expressions can always be written, but you must be able to write. I just haven't encountered such a situation. I don't know how to deal with it, whether to refute and explain one by one or directly summarize and explain the situation. Sxpccw (station contact TA) should be patient, after all, people have the power to live and die. Screw (contact TA in the station) euphemistically sends an email to the editor, and asks yw__577 (contact TA in the station) of the original thinking at 2010-08-12: 37: 65438.
I will definitely write, but I have never encountered such a situation. I don't know how to deal with it, whether to refute and explain one by one or directly summarize and explain the situation. If it's irrelevant, it's definitely not a response. Explain the situation to the editor, and ask him to check whether jxgznd_zyj has any mistakes (contact TA in the station). Just write an email to explain. Don't be too modest about what is reasonable. Felicity6056 (TA in the contact station) This editor is really useless! Haizhfly (contact station TA) Hehe, don't worry about normal questions! Su Changhong (contact TA in the station) may be that the reviewer sent the wrong document and sent another article: D:D's review comments: Drjz 17 17 (contact TA in the station). Just explain normally. He's human, too. Thinking (in-station contact TA) was originally published by Su Changhong on 20 10.
It may be that the reviewer sent the wrong document and sent a review opinion of another article: D: D: D just sent someone else's to me, so I was at a loss, and the opinions put forward were completely inconsistent with the article. Depressed. Johnyucl (conTAct ta in the station) I once contributed to a periodical and gave advice. A donkey's lips are not right. My method is as follows:
(2) On the basis of his original words, after quoting the original words, every point began to refute. For example, he said something that he didn't say at all. I just say I don't agree with this view, and then give the reasons;
(4) Sometimes, he can't give the reviewer face, he doesn't understand it, and he gives it back to others for review. This is his fault;
(5) rebutting in solemn written language is beneficial for editors to accept your opinions, reassign reviewers or hire them directly; Also, don't write to the editor, just use your notes to modify it directly, otherwise it will waste time and the effect may not be good! Kiruwa (TA in the contact station) I met the same situation, and the boss said it doesn't matter, just answer reviwers' opinion.
Question 8: The paper is well written. How do reviewers write the introduction of peer review opinions? Introduction, also known as preface, preface and introduction, is used at the beginning of the paper. The introduction should generally write the author's intention, explain the purpose and significance of the topic, and point out the scope of the paper writing. The introduction should be short and concise, and stick to the theme.
(2) Text of the paper: The text is the main body of the paper and should include arguments, arguments, argumentation process and conclusions. The main part includes the following contents:
A. Questions-arguments;
B. analyzing the problem-arguments and arguments;
C. problem solving-demonstrating methods and steps;
Question 9: What do you mean by peer review? Your article is not up to the published standard.
If you still want to publish, you should revise it according to the requirements of the annex, and resubmit the PDF version of the paper within 6 weeks, otherwise it will be considered as giving up.
Question 10: Opinions on the review of conference papers. At present, the requirements for conference papers are generally not high. In this case, you should first complete your own information, including mailing address, contact information and author's name ... You know, this is pointed out in the revised draft. It's hard to say if you haven't read your article, but if you need to increase innovation, increase the comparison between the references in the preface and your research, talk about the shortcomings of others and highlight your own advantages. If we vote again, it should be worse. Personal opinion! ! Ha ha! Good luck!