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:

The algorithm has not been 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.

◆ Before submitting the revision, make sure that your materials are ready and in the correct 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 someone with professional technical English editing ability, paying special attention to English grammar, spelling and sentence structure, so that readers can clearly understand the research objectives and results.

◆ Before submission, authors must submit their works to the appropriate translation/review institutions for review; 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.

Before resubmitting, the English of your manuscript must be improved. Our strait

I only suggest that you seek help from a colleague who is proficient in English.

English or a native speaker of English.

Please find someone who is proficient in English and this subject.

Check and correct it for the rest 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.

Editor, because this topic is very interesting.

I have a continuous interest in the manuscript entitled "..." submitted by you.

Journal of biomedical materials research: part b-applied biomaterials

Materials.

The submitted content has been greatly improved and is worth publishing.

-

How to write English peer review opinions

First of all, this blog post was written because of Zhang Yiwen's blog post (commenting on an SCI manuscript is not good for everyone (continued). Zhang's blog post is actually very well written, and my personal experience is of great reference value. I have read it carefully. But the English comments attached to the blog post made me laugh. I declare here that I don't mean to ridicule or show off at all, because this is Zhang's first peer review in English, and to be honest, it is much better than my first peer review.

In other words, the first time I contributed to an English periodical, it was not the invitation of the periodical editor, but the task arranged by my tutor. Specifically, the editor asked the tutor to review the manuscript, and the tutor asked me to review the manuscript first for the purpose of training me, and then discussed the revision with him. My review program at that time was like this:

First, open Kingsoft and Google Translate. What are you doing? Look for new words. You know there are many unknown words in English written by others, so don't look them up! In this way, it took me almost three or four days to finally finish reading other people's papers. What should I write after reading this review opinion? I have no choice but to go to my tutor. The tutor said that the first thing to look at when reviewing an article is the structure of the article. What is the structure of the article? The structure of the article actually refers to the logical relationship within the article. What is the internal logical relationship? To put it simply, it is whether the literature review in the introduction part of the article is comprehensive, whether it paves the way for raising questions, and whether it summarizes the content framework of this article at the end of the introduction. The introduction is followed by the methodology part. There are only three commonly used methods in this part: analytical theory, experiment, numerical calculation or a case study. The internal logic of these parts, that is, what is the relationship between these methods, must be clear and definite. Otherwise, you can boldly write such a sentence: the structure of this paper is not very good. Following is different. Then clearly point out how to modify the structure of the paper.

Second, it is English. About English is the author's background first. If you are Asian, please pay attention to the authors from Chinese mainland, Japan, South Korea and the Middle East. Most writers in these places have problems with English. Of course, there are also problems that need to be revised. At this time, you can use the following sentence: This paper is full of sloppy grammar and editing problems. Many of them will bring different feelings to readers. Then give a few examples. Let me give you a hint. If you are not very confident about a word or sentence you have written, put it on Google, and it is easy to find similar sentences to verify whether what you have written is true or not.

The third is the discussion of professional issues. If you can get to the point and hit the nail on the head, even if you finally shoot the article, the author will be convinced. Of course, everyone has no deep hatred, and they don't have to die to show their rigor and high level. While pointing out the problems, constructive suggestions for revision are welcome.

Fourth, emphasize the details. Everyone may have this kind of experience, and the evaluation opinions should be remembered as false and tall. We should proceed from the details, convince people by reasoning and speak with facts. This is convincing. On the other hand, if a word is indiscriminate, lacks innovation, and stifles the article, it will be ignored. At the same time, such peer review opinions will also make the editor-in-chief very embarrassed. How can we convince people? You say that other people's methods are not innovative, please give your detailed reasons, and it is best to give relevant reference.

Fifth, organize your own review opinions, and it would be better if you could classify them properly. For example:

-Technical items that must be revised:

-Technical items proposed for revision:

-Items to be edited and modified:

In this way, it is very clear whether the editor-in-chief makes the decision or the author modifies it. It also means that the judges at least look professional.

Finally, there is another trick: it is very simple, that is, read the review opinions of your own papers carefully, study hard, including learning English routines used by others, and memorize them. When you review the paper, you will get a full refund and your grades will go up. I know what my level is, I know, you don't know.