20 1 1-04-24 19:24
The following score of 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 is worth noting that your manuscript needs to be carefully edited by people with professional English editing knowledge, paying special attention to English grammar, spelling and sentence structure, so that readers can clearly understand the objectives and results of the research.
2. The research method is not explained or not fully explained.
In general, there is a lack of explanation for the repetition and statistical methods used in the study.
In addition, we should explain why the author did these different experiments.
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:
The algorithm is not compared with the previous known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on the previous work.
10, tightness problem:
MNQ is simpler than the original PNQS. How to prove it?
1 1, format (emphasis):
In addition, the list of references is not our style. This is close, but not entirely correct. I attached a pdf file with "Instructions from the Author", which shows examples.
◆ Make sure that your materials are ready before submitting the revision.
Format. If you are not sure, please refer to the format instructions given to the author under the "Description and Table" button in the upper right corner of the screen.
12, Language problem (the most common problem):
Reviewers' comments on related languages:
It should be noted that your manuscript needs to be carefully edited by people with professional English editing skills, paying special attention to English grammar, spelling and sentence structure, so that readers can clearly understand the objectives and results of the research. ◆ Before submission, authors must have their works reviewed by appropriate translation/review institutions; Only in this way can a proper review be conducted. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.
As mentioned above, magazines don't accept this writing. Have relatives
Sentence structure, verb tense and clause structure.
◆ Your manuscript English must be improved before submitting again. We strongly recommend that you ask a colleague who is proficient in computers for help.
An Englishman or a native speaker of English.
Please ask someone who is proficient in English to check and revise the title of your paper. ?
The quality of English needs to be improved.
Encouragement from the editor:
Encouragement from the judges:
Once the paper is finished, I will be very happy to review it more deeply.
It was edited because the theme was interesting.
People have always been interested in the manuscript named "..." that you submitted.
Journal of biomedical materials research: part b-applied biomaterials
Materials.
The submission has been greatly improved and is worth publishing.
This article comes from CSDN blog, please indicate the source:
Review opinions of English abstract articles written by foreigners
Ms. Ref No.: * * * * *
Title: * * * * *
Materials science and engineering
Dear Dr. * * * * * *,
Commentators have commented on your P.
Newspapers. You will see that they suggest that you revise your manuscript. If you are
I'm prepared to undertake the required work, and I'm happy to reconsider my decision. In order to give you guidance, the reviewers' opinions are attached below.
Reviewer # 1: This work proposes an extensive review of the microemulsion-based method for synthesizing silver nanoparticles. Therefore, this question is very interesting, but this paper has two serious limitations:
1) The overall quality of English is relatively poor;
2) It is necessary to select some diagrams from the previous literature to discuss the synthesis of anisotropic Ag nanoparticles (there are several published examples), which is greatly ignored in the whole paper. ;
Once the above problems are fully solved, the manuscript can be published in this journal.
Source:. Suffix of html file
This is a contribution that I know well in the whole process. I think the content of the contribution is quite good. The Chinese version was submitted to the core journals with high influence in the industry and published soon. At that time, as one of the reviewers, I specially suggested five references that should be supplemented in addition to some suggestions for revision. When this article was officially published, there were 25 references.
The author may see that the comments are not bad, so he decided to try to contribute to an English journal sponsored by an American society. After several revisions and supplements, I invited a China native with a good "basic" English to translate. About three weeks after submission, I responded to three peer review comments.
Judging from the feedback from English journals, the most serious problem of this manuscript is the lack of literature review and citation, followed by the lack of language expression, in addition to the lack of demonstration process and results display form.
Feeling: A good paper needs to be carefully crafted from content to form.
Attachment 1: Comments on Chinese Translation
Comment-1
(1) poor English expression. Although the meaning can be clearly expressed, there are too many grammatical mistakes.
(2) Literature review is poor, and opinions or conclusions should be supported by literature.
(3) The paper reads like an advertisement for XXX, and I wonder if the author has nothing to do with XXX.
(4) The innovation of this model is not as described by the author. At present, many XX adopt this model (such as American Geophysical Society). I want to examine and analyze the innovation of XXX operation mode in detail.
(5) The model is not as successful as the author said ... (The assessor makes a concrete analysis based on the data in the paper) Comments -2
(1) is missing a direct reference (e.g. ...).
(2) The writing quality can't meet the standards of American academic journals.
Review comments -3
(1) The author should highlight his own contribution.
(2) Lack of methodological analysis to support the author's findings.
(3) It is necessary to display (data) information in the form of tables and maps.
Appendix 2: English Peer Review (slightly abridged)
Reviewed by: 1
There are many problems in this paper.
English is very poor. Although the meaning is generally clear, it is not clear.
Many sentences are right.
The literature review is very poor. This paper is full of assertions and propositions that should be supported by references.
The newspaper advertised XXX. It is not clear whether the author is independent of XXX.
XXX's AA model is not as innovative as the author claims. There are many XX models that follow this model (for example, American Geophysical Union), and the author should investigate these models to see which one introduced the elements of XXX model first.
This model is not as successful as the author claims. ……
Generally speaking, the statement and content of the paper can only mean that I refuse the paper to be rejected.
Reviewed by: 2
There are two main problems in this paper:
(1) It omits the context (and citations) of what is now called "two-sided" market literature, including those directly related to … (e.g.
Blancstein, Gassis1977; Economics and economics. Katsanakas，Mgt。 Sci。 , 2006; Mccabe & ampSnyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).
(2) The writing quality can't meet the standards of American academic journals. Checker: 3
1. The author should emphasize his contribution in this manuscript.
2. It lacks analytical methods to support the author's findings.
Descriptive materials like this manuscript need structured tables. The picture shows a better demonstration.