以下内容首发于微信公众号：【埃米编辑】。关注埃米编辑，写作投稿更容易~如有论文润色需求，可以联系我们哦~

投稿至期刊后，随即迎来的是同行评审的等待期，这是决定文章能否成功发表的关键阶段。审稿意见通常包括直接接收、建议修改和拒稿。其中，直接接收和拒稿的审稿意见相对明确，而建议修改则较为复杂，细分为小修、大修和修改后转投等不同情况。

若未能准确理解评审意见，错误地做出反馈，可能会严重影响论文的后续发表进程。因此，本文将提供一些常见的审稿意见，帮助作者判断到底是大修还是小修~

1 小修（Minor Revisions）

This is a well-written manuscript that only needs to undergo a few minor changes. First, …

The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.

I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and only have some minor requests for revision.

如果收到了类似于以上列举的审稿意见，那么恭喜你，这意味着你的文章大体上符合审稿专家和期刊的要求。接下来，只需要按照具体的修改意见，进行小幅度的调整和完善即可。审稿意见可能包含以下几个方面的问题。

1） 原创性不够突出

每一篇学术论文都是作者的研究成果，原创性是其必不可少的核心要素。同样地，也要审稿专家清晰地看到你文章中所展现的原创性。

The authors develop a unique theoretical framework, and I believe that they should highlight their originality much more.

2） 文献综述不完整

作为审稿专家，他们通常具备该领域坚实的专业知识背景。在初步阅读你的文章后，他们可能会建议补充一些相关领域内的文献，以确保引言部分更加全面和完整。

The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.

The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.

The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on…

The literature review is promising, but disregards recent publications in the field of…

3） 论点不清晰

一些作者写论文时，可能过于专注于研究过程的详细描述，而相对忽视了对论点的清晰归纳和总结，这样可能会导致审稿专家在审阅时，需要自行梳理和寻找论文的主要论点。

The authors draw on extensive empirical evidence. I believe that they can put forward their arguments much more confidently.

4） 语言表达问题

学术论文的撰写要求严格，无论是段落的划分、句子的表达，还是某个词语的不当使用，都可能成为需要修改的内容，这一类通常属于小修。

To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.

I had difficulties understanding the first paragraph on page 5, and suggest that the authors reformulate and simplify it.

Throughout the manuscript, there are several language mistakes. Therefore, I recommend a professional round of language editing before the paper is published.

The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.

5） 图表使用不恰当

图表的规范使用也不能忽略，确保图表能够清晰表达研究内容，并且格式符合期刊的要求。

Figure 3 is difficult to read and should be adjusted.

Table 1 and 2 can be combined to create a better overview.

2 大修（Major Revisions）

The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some major issues need to be addressed before it can be published.

This manuscript addresses a timely topic and makes a relevant contribution to the field. However, some major revisions are needed before it can be published.

I enjoyed reading this manuscript, and believe that it is very promising. At the same time, I identified several issues that require the authors' attention.

The manuscript sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. However, it also has several shortcomings. I strongly encourage the authors to address the following points.

如果收到需要大修的审稿意见，也不用慌，这实际上说明文章已经得到了同行评审的一定认可。接下来，应认真阅读审稿意见，重视每一处修改，争取论文早日通过审核，最终成功发表。审稿意见可能包含以下几个方面的问题。

1） 关键论点需进一步阐述

The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear.

The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly.

2） 缺少论证

学术论文作为对科学性要求较高的文体，审稿专家在审阅时会更注重其论证的完整性。若存在论证缺失或疑问之处，专家会明确指出，并要求作者进行相应的补充和完善。

The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…

I encourage the authors to provide more in-depth evidence. For instance, I would like to see more interview quotes and a more transparent statistical analysis.

The authors work with an interesting dataset. However, I was missing more detailed insights in the actual results. I believe that several additional tables and figures can improve the authors’ argumentation.

3） 对内容产生疑问

由于论文具体研究内容通常篇幅较大，审稿专家若在审阅过程中对其具体内容产生质疑，往往意味着论文需要进行重大修改。如果运气好的话，专家还会提供修改建议。

I believe that the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and includes a timely discussion. However, I struggled to understand section 3.1.

I think that the manuscript can be improved by removing section 4 and integrating it into section 5.

The line of argumentation should be improved by dividing the manuscript into clear sections with subheadings.

无论是小修还是大修，都需要根据审稿意见逐条修改论文。小修通常意味着作者只需针对特定部分进行修改，并且大概率编辑不会再将论文送回同行评审。然而，大修则要求对论文进行深入的结构性调整，并且返修后，期刊通常会再次将论文送审，以确保修改是否符合要求，并检查是否出现了新的问题。

因此，要读懂同行评审的意见，理解其言外之意，对自己的论文发表负责。在论文发表的过程中，你还收到过哪些审稿意见呢？