锦州
切换分站
免费发布信息
信息分类
当前位置:锦州易登网 > 锦州热点资讯 > 锦州热点资讯 >  [审稿意见英文]英文审稿意见求助

[审稿意见英文]英文审稿意见求助

发表时间:2023-02-26 13:48:25  来源:资讯  浏览:次   【】【】【
      英文文章里面审稿人的审稿意见如下:AclearillustrationoftheVELOscalewillneedtobeaddedintothepaperandcontrastedwiththeauthor'smodifiedinstrument.      不太明白审稿人.

      英文文章里面审稿人的审稿意见如下:AclearillustrationoftheVELOscalewillneedtobeaddedintothepaperandcontrastedwiththeauthor'smodifiedinstrument.

      不太明白审稿人的意思,望各位大神求解,谢谢谢谢

审稿意见英文
       英文审稿意见求助

审稿意见回复信英文模板和语料总结

      模板1.

      Dearprof.XXanddearreviewers

      Re:ManuscriptID:XXXXXandTitle:XXXXXX

      Thankyouforyourletterandthereviewers’commentsconcerningourmanuscriptentitled“XXXXXX”(ID).Thosecommentsarevaluableandveryhelpful.Wehavereadthroughcommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrections.Basedontheinstructionsprovidedinyourletter,weuploadedthefileoftherevisedmanuscript.Revisionsinthetextareshownusingredhighlightforadditions,andstrikethroughfontfordeletions.Theresponsestothereviewer'scommentsaremarkedinredandpresentedfollowing.

      Wewouldlovetothankyouforallowingustoresubmitarevisedcopyofthemanuscriptandwehighlyappreciateyourtimeandconsideration.

      Sincerely.

      XXXXX.

      Reviewer#1:

      Q1.Interpretationcouldbedeepenedregardingxx.关于xx的讨论应该更深入一些.

      Response:Wearegratefulforthesuggestion.Tobemoreclearlyandinaccordancewiththereviewerconcerns,wehaveaddedamoredetailedinterpretationregardingxxx.Moredetailedstatisticalanalysiswasaddedonpage…

      Q2.theEnglishlanguageneedstoberevisedforclarity…

      Response:Weapologizeforthelanguageproblemsintheoriginalmanuscript.ThelanguagepresentationwasimprovedwithassistancefromanativeEnglishspeakerwithappropriateresearchbackground.

      Q3.Page10,thelastsentenceofthefirstchaptershouldread:...,

      Response:Weagreewiththecommentandre-wrotethesentenceintherevisedmanuscriptasthefollowing:….

      Q4.Pleaseprovidedetailsofresults,andpleaseanalyzeanddiscussit.

      Response:Wearegratefulforthesuggestion.Assuggestedbythereviewer,wehaveaddedmoredetailsof…

      其他语料:

      1.Thankyouforyoursuggestion.Assuggestedbyreviewer,wehaveaddedthesuggestedcontenttothemanuscriptonpage…

      2.Thankyouforyourcomments,thediscussionregardingthisquestionispresentedfollowing:…

      3.Wedeeplyappreciatethereviewer’ssuggestion.Accordingtothereviewer’scomment,wehaveaddedamoredetailedinterpretationregarding…

      4.Thankyouforyourcomment,andourreplyisasfollows:…

      5.Response:Wedeeplyappreciatethereviewer’ssuggestion.Accordingtothereviewer’scomment,wehaveprovidedmoredetailstodescribethepossiblereasons.

      6.Weareextremelygratefultoreviewerforpointingoutthisproblem.Wehave…

      7.Wearegratefulforthesuggestion.Tobemoreclearandinaccordancewiththereviewerconcerns,wehaveaddedabriefdescriptionasfollows:

      8.Wehavemodifiedthisexpressionthroughoutthetextaccordingtothecomment.

      9.Thankyouforthesuggestion.Wehaveaddedtheinformationrequiredasexplainedabove(Lines6-28,page6)

      10.Thankyouforunderliningthisdeficiency.Thissectionwasrevisedandmodifiedaccordingtotheinformationshowedintheworksuggestedbythereviewer(Line41,page3).

      11.Thankyouforthesuggestion.Wehaveaddedtheinformationrequiredasexplainedabove(Lines6-28,page6).

      12.Modifiedthroughoutthetextaccordingtothecomment(Line20,page1).Thankyouforthetitlesuggested.Theprecedentversionofthetitlehasbeenreplaced,becoming...

      13.Weappreciatethereviewer’spositiveevaluationofourwork.

      14.Ourdeepestgratitudegoestoyouforyourcarefulworkandthoughtfulsuggestionsthathavehelpedimprovethispapersubstantially.

      15.WehavecarefullyrevisedthelanguageissueagainbasedonthelatestfileuploadedonOctober5th.Thisrevisionishighlightedingreen(foradding)andstrikethroughfont(fordeleting)inthetext.Atthesametime,wehaveuploadedthefileoftherevisedmanuscriptandflowchartfile.

      16.Thankyouforyourpreciouscommentsandadvice.Thosecommentsareallvaluableandveryhelpfulforrevisingandimprovingourpaper.Wehaverevisedthemanuscriptaccordingly,andourpoint-by-pointresponsesarepresentedabove.

      17.Weappreciatethereviewer’spositiveevaluationofourworkandagreewiththecommentsregardingthelimitationsofourstudy.

      模板2.来自公众号《大葱的后花园》

      DearEditors(或编辑的具体姓名Prof.xxx)andreviewers:

      Thankyouforyourpreciouscommentsandadvice.Thosecommentsareallvaluableandveryhelpfulforrevisingandimprovingourpaper,aswellastheimportantguidingsignificancetoourresearches.Wehavestudiedcommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrectionwhichwehopemeetwithapproval.Revisedportionaremarkedinredinthepaper.Themaincorrectionsinthepaperandtherespondstothereviewer’scommentsareasflowing:

      Responsetothereviewer'scomments:

      Reviewer#1:

      1.一般第一段是reviewer对你文章的总结。

      Thankyouforyoursummary.Wereallyappreciateyoureffortsinreviewingourmanuscript.Wehaverevisedthemanuscriptaccordingly.Ourpoint-by-pointresponsesaredetailedbelow.

      2.你的语言很差,通篇很多语法错误:Thereviewersarequiteunanimousinthat,thisisanimportantpieceofworkwithalargenumberofpatients.However,theEnglishgrammaticalerrorsdetractfromthequalityofthepaperandmakesitdifficulttoread.

      Thankyouforyourcarefulreview.Weareverysorryforthemistakesinthismanuscriptandinconveniencetheycausedinyourreading.ThemanuscripthasbeenthoroughlyrevisedandrewrittenbyanativeEnglishspeaker(或者杂志推荐的润色公司如Americanjournalexpert),sowehopeitcanmeetthejournal’sstandard.

      3.你的文章没有新意,你说的大家都知道:Theresultsarenotnovel.

      Thankyouforyourcarefulreview.WebelievethatmostspecialistsinXXXknowsthatXXX.详细的介绍你的创新性,最好加几篇参考文献。Despitetheconclusionsarethesameaswethought,weprovidethebasisforcommonsense.

      4.你的文章没有XXX数据,Oneofthemajorweakpointsofthisarticleisthatthereisnocomparativedata……

      Thankyouforyourcarefulreview.Werespectivelyscreenedxxxx.(1):加数据,详细的加,重新做统计,不仅要放到Results,为了reviewer方便要放到回复下面。(2)加不了数据,详细的给reviewer写明为啥加不了数据。在discussion和limitation中加入你为什么加不了数据,因为没条件没研究经费XXX…

      5.你没引用某个文献。Inthediscussionpartaboutthe,theauthorsarerecommendedtocitethefirstarticlesasbelow.

      Thankyouforyourcarefulreview.ThesetwoimportantpiecesofresearchfoundthatXXX.Wecitedthesetwoarticlesinthediscussion.一定要加reviewer建议的文献,可能就是reviewer自己的文章,可以搜一下同一作者的文章,多引用几篇。

      6.你的纳入标准写的啥,我都看不懂。Howmanypatientshadxxxxandhowmanyhadxxx

      Thankyouforyourcarefulreview.Weapologizefornotdescribingtheinclusioncriteriaclearer.Wehavenowaddedflowdiagramofthestudyparticipants.(有时候你自己认为很清楚,大家觉得很乱,所以加个流程图就很明了了)

      最后感谢下审稿人的付出,就OK了

      Thankyouforyourcarefulreview.Wereallyappreciateyoureffortsinreviewingourmanuscriptduringthisunprecedentedandchallengingtime.Wewishgoodhealthtoyou,yourfamily,andcommunity.Yourcarefulreviewhashelpedtomakeourstudyclearerandmorecomprehensive.

      模板3.

      DearEditorsandReviewers,

      Thanksverymuchfortakingyourtimetoreviewthismanuscript.Wereallyappreciateallyourgenerouscommentsandsuggestions!Pleasefindmyrevisionsinthere-submittedfiles.

      Responsetothereviewer’scomments

      Weareverygratefultoyourcommentsforthemanuscript.Accordingtoyouradvice,weamendedtherelevantpartinmanuscript.Allofyourquestionswereansweredonebyone.

      1….

      2…

      3…

      模板4.

      DearEditor,Dearreviewers

      ThankyouforyourletterdatedFebruary22.WewerepleasedtoknowthatourworkwasratedaspotentiallyacceptableforpublicationinJournal,subjecttoadequaterevision.Wethankthereviewersforthetimeandeffortthattheyhaveputintoreviewingthepreviousversionofthemanuscript.Theirsuggestionshaveenabledustoimproveourwork.Basedontheinstructionsprovidedinyourletter,weuploadedthefileoftherevisedmanuscript.Accordingly,wehaveuploadedacopyoftheoriginalmanuscriptwithallthechangeshighlightedbyusingthetrackchangesmodeinMSWord.Appendedtothisletterisourpoint-by-pointresponsetothecommentsraisedbythereviewers.Thecommentsarereproducedandourresponsesaregivendirectlyafterwardinadifferentcolor(red).Wewouldlikealsotothankyouforallowingustoresubmitarevisedcopyofthemanuscript.

      WehopethattherevisedmanuscriptisacceptedforpublicationintheJournalofMountainScience.Sincerely,XXXX

      模板5.(摘自丁香园的某位战友,但是抱歉,我忘记账号了)

      DetailedResponsestoReviewer

      Responsetoreviewer#1:

      Themanuscriptandwritingareverysimilarthereviewbelow:****

      Response:Weagreewithyourcomment.Theframedesignofthismanuscriptissimilarreallytoabovepublishedreview.However,theemphasesofthesetworeviewsaredistinct.

      Inthepreviousreview,theauthorhasdiscussedhow*******includingParkinson’sdisease(PD),Alzheimer’sdisease(AD),andamyotrophiclateralsclerosis(ALS).Whereas,inthepresentmanuscript,wehavemainlyfocusedontheeffectshow*****8.

      Inadditiontosome***discussedinthepreviousreview,wehavealsosummarizedmanyothertargetproteins,including**,***,****,**,**.Moreover,wehaveintroducedthelatestresearchfindingswhichwereevennotmentionedinthepreviousreview.Furthermore,intermsoftreatment,wehaveprovidedmoredetailsabouttarget***toaparticulartherapeuticaim.

      Wethoughtourworkcouldattracttheresearcher’sattention,becausewehaveprovidedmorecomprehensiveanddetailedinformationabout*****.Forthisreason,wesubmittedthecurrentmanuscript.

      Responsetoreviewer#2:

      1.Thisisanexcellentreviewon***givingasystematicanddetailedpictureonthisimportantissue.

      Response:Weappreciatethereviewer’spositiveevaluationofourwork.

      2.Someminorpoints:Someabbreviationsareappearmorethanonetime(likeMAP),ormissing(PSD-95),ordonotappearthefirsttimementioned(VDAC).

      Response:Weapologizeforthelanguageproblemsintheoriginalmanuscript.Followingthereviewer’ssuggestion,wehavedeletedtherepeatedabbreviations,like“MAP”,“Cdk-5”and“NMDA”,introducedthe“PSD-95”atitsfirstmentionandaddedthe“VDAC”afteritsfullname.LanguagepresentationwasimprovedwithassistancefromanativeEnglishspeakerwithappropriateresearchbackground.

      3.Inpage72thparagraph:"****"sentencenotclear.

      Response:Weagreewiththecommentandre-wrotethesentenceintherevisedmanuscriptasthefollowing:“*******.”

      4.Inpage10,atbottom,that“*****”canitbeexplainedabitmore?

      Response:Wedeeplyappreciatethereviewer’ssuggestion.Accordingtothereviewer’scomment,weprovidedmoredetailstodescribethismechanismasthefollowing:

      “******.”

      5.Sometypos.

      Response:Weapologizeforthemistakesinthemanuscriptandalsocarefullycheckedtheentiremanuscriptfortypographic,grammaticalandformattingerrors.

      想要延长稿件修改的最后期限邮件模板

      Dearprof.xxx,

      ThankyouverymuchforyourE-mailof"September5,2019"regardingourmanuscript"ID:xxxx".Sincerethanksalsogototheresponsibleandkindreviewersforhelpingusimproveourmanuscriptinbothscientificandlinguisticaspects.

      AssoonasreceivingyourE-mail,alltheauthorsdiscussedthecommentsonebyonecarefully.Wetotallyagreewiththereviewersthatmajorandmoderaterevisionsneedtomakeinourmanuscript.Wealsofoundthatitwouldbedifficulttoaddresssomeissuesraisedbythereviewers.Forexample,weneedtosupplementthedataandredothestatisticalanalysis,whichtakesalongtime.Anotherdilemmaisthatwehaveappliedaprofessionalcopyeditingservicestosolvethelanguageproblemraisedbyreviewers,butwehavenotyetreceivedtherevisedmanuscript.

      So,wedonotthinktherevisedmanuscriptwillbefinishedby"October5,2019".Weestimateitwilltakeaweeklongertopreparetherevisedmanuscriptandtheresponsetothecomments.

      Wewouldbegratefulifyoucouldpostponethedeadlineon"October12,2019".

      Thankyouonceagainforyourattentiontoourpaper.

      BestRegards.

      Yourssincerely,

      XXXX.

      以下中文版摘自公众号《浙大学报英文版》

      如果审稿人认为你的论文创新性不强,那么你可以回复说:“谢谢你的意见。我们这篇论文的确没有‘震惊宇宙’,并且原稿的引言部分没有把新意、重要性写清楚;有鉴于此,我们已经加强了引言部分,把创新性强调出来。本文的创新性就在于……”

      如果审稿人误解了你一句话的意思,那么你不应该在心中骂审稿人愚蠢,也不应在答辩信中费唇舌解释,而应该这样想——审稿人是读者的代表,既然审稿人读了文章,产生误解,那么其他读者读了这篇文章也会产生误解。于是,可以把涉及的句子重新变换一下,写得清楚一些,并在答辩信中写:“谢谢提醒。我们原本的写作的确会引起歧义,现在我们根据审稿人的意见修改如下……”

      如果审稿人要你补充一个实验,那么你就得做这个实验。如果实验结果能说明问题,那么要把实验结果写到论文里去。如果实验结果不能说明问题,也要在答辩信中展示、分析数据,告诉审稿人已经做了要求的实验,但没有得到有价值的结果,原因是什么。甚至可以把这些数据放到“支撑信息”部分,让审稿人觉得作者并没有心虚。

      如果审稿人要你补充一个实验,但你没有实验条件,或者不能在短时期内做出这个实验怎么办?有的作者回复说:“审稿人建议的这个实验不重要,和本文无关。”但其实,作者应该静下心来分析——审稿人要求补充这个实验,是要了解什么信息或者达到什么实验目的(比如知道样品的元素含量)?如果作者没有审稿人提及的那个实验仪器,那么用别的仪器能否得到这个信息?作者应该想法设法补充实验,满足审稿人的要求,让审稿人“无话可说”。

      万一还是无法满足审稿人的要求,那么作者也应在答辩信中诚恳说出原因,并且在修改论文时有所行动。比如,审稿人问:“反应机理是什么?”你由于种种原因无法弄清反应机理,那么应该在论文的讨论或者结论部分加上:“本文的主要目的是开发新的催化剂,但反应机理不清楚。这些催化剂的后续催化应用和反应机理值得进一步研究。”

      你对实验现象提出了一种解释,但审稿人提出另一种解释,怎么办?我们要懂一点科学哲学。对于一个现象,当然可能有几种解释,我们不能执拗地说别的解释一定是错的,而要用实验数据来说话。如果实验数据说明审稿人的解释是合理的(作者原先的解释也没错),那么可以在修改论文时把新的解释加上,并且说实验数据和这个解释吻合,但两个解释究竟哪个更合理,有待于进一步验证。而如果实验数据说明审稿人的解释不合理,那么在修改论文时,可以写:“对于以上数据还有另外一种解释……但我们的实验结果并不支撑这种解释。”这么做的“原理”就在于:审稿人代表读者来读你的稿子,如果你只是在答辩信中告诉审稿人他的解释不成立,而没有把相关内容写到论文里,那么读者读到你的论文,同样会产生困惑。

      如果审稿人要你针对文中某一个论断引用几篇文献,但你发现审稿人指定的这几篇文献和这个论断无关,怎么办?人非完人,审稿人的心中也有“自我”,甚至会“自私”。他要你引用的几篇文献,有可能包含着他自己发表的论文。作者处理这样的事情就要讲究“艺术”——这些论文引用在这一段不贴切,那么能否贴切地引用在别的段落?如果找不到现成的段落,那么能否阅读了这几篇文献后,想出一两句贴切的句子,增补在论文的某处,并引用这几篇文献?如果实在找不到引用这几篇文献的地方,能否甄别出这些文献的作者,并搜索这些作者别的文献,把这些“替代文献”贴切地引用到你的论文中,并告诉审稿人在哪里进行了修改?

      单纯想为方便大家而总结的语料,谢谢提供上述素材的慷慨大方的好人们

      如果有不妥之处,请联系删除,感恩!

      工具人

免责声明:本站部分内容转载于网络或用户自行上传发布,其中内容仅代表作者个人观点,与本网无关。其原创性以及文中陈述文字和内容未经本站证实,对本文以及其中全部或者部分内容、文字的真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,不负任何法律责任,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。若有来源标注错误或侵犯了您的合法权益,请作者持权属证明与本网联系,发送到本站邮箱,我们将及时更正、删除,谢谢。