如何正确审稿

很多人都审过稿，英文的、中文的。每个人审稿都要写出相应的意见。当意见是同意接受时，无论指的毛病有多犀利还是什么，作者都能认可。但是当意见是拒绝时，作者本能的反应就是意见写的太过火了，或者根本不是针对论文的。那么应该如何审稿才能尽量避免引起作者的强烈不满呢。很多人都有自己的观点，我说几个自认为很重要的意见：
1、不要因为写作水平差就随便拒稿。众所周知，从小学、初中、高中开始，很多学生都有偏科的现象，特别是很多数学或者物理好的人，往往作文水平差。虽然科技论文的写作属于八股论文，有一定的格式，但是很多时候有的人的表述还是不好。因此这种情况下，如果作者的论文有新意，只要写作能够把自己的观点表述清楚，就尽量建议接受，指出作者对文稿认真修改即可。
2、不要故意写作者没有做什么实验或模拟而拒稿。很多人做研究的时候，都喜欢把问题简单化，尽量减少某些考虑因素。因此在审稿的时候，只要作者针对某个因素进行了透彻的研究，千万不能因为没有考虑某些方面而拒稿。这里可能举例说明一下：比如做材料研究时，由于很多材料都是非球形，但是做数值模拟的时候为了简化，很可能将材料先作为球形来研究，只要作者利用球形得到的结果真实，要新意，那么就要接受该稿子。可能在审稿意见里建议作者继续做非球形的材料。
3、炒冷饭的一定要拒稿。很多人为了文章数量，将自己很多发表了的论文加以整理，但是没有任何新的工作，这样的稿子一定要坚持拒稿。审稿的时候，经常看到很多文章中大部分的实验和公式都是在国外或者国内好刊物上发表了，这样的稿件实质上属于一稿多发，遇到这种情况，千万不能因为作者是牛人，或者说别人的成果已经发表在牛刊物上就不好拒绝。一定要保证不能让人随便灌水。
4、不要嫉妒新人的成果而拒稿。很多时候做科研或者写论文，都是在卖弄一些概念或者想法，只要任何人想到了，就能得到相应的结果。这个时候如果你恰好审到了一篇你很感兴趣的、而且想法很奇特、但是有新意的文章，千万不能因为觉得自己也能进行这样的工作而拒稿。
5、不能因为反对自己的观点而拒稿。很多研究生在写前言和综述的时候，经常引用一些大牛的综述，在综述里面经常会有某个观点和实验存在某些问题和缺点，如果这个时候你审的稿子中正好说到了自己的缺点，这个时候千万不要生气，一定要看看作者说自己的缺点在别人考虑问题中的重要性，如果很重要，那要看作者能不能解决，如果不重要，那就不要在意作者。

一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：

（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。与大家一起分享。
以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。

1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.
Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments
should be provided.
3、对于研究设计的rationale:

Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：

The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.
5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：

A hypothesis needs to be presented。
6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：

What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

7、对研究问题的定义：

Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem.

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:
The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.
9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:
There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.
10、严谨度问题：
MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.
11、格式（重视程度）：
In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.
Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting instructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in the upper right-hand corner of the screen.
12、语言问题（出现最多的问题），有关语言的审稿人意见：
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.
As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.
The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.
Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?
The quality of English needs improving.
13、来自编辑的鼓励Encouragement from reviewers:
I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting.
There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" Which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.
The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.

审稿意见的一些套话

1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revisions are list below.
2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as –
4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.
5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.
8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.
10. The condition of incubation is poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?

完整模板：论文审稿

Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency analysis method in rotor systems
Journal of Sound and Vibration
Dear student ××××,
We have now received comments on your manuscript from the reviewers (reports included below). Please revise your manuscript according to the referee's suggestions and detail all the changes which you have made. I hope you will be prepared to undertake this, and I will then be pleased to reconsider the manuscript for publication. Please note that due to the extensive revisions necessay on your manuscript, it will need to be sent out for re-review.
If you do decide to revise the paper, we need to receive your new manuscript within the next six months. You are asked to submit the following items along with the manuscript:
(1) A point-by-point reply that we can send to each reviewer;
(2) A separate list of the revisions made to the manuscript.
It is important that you address all the issues raised by the referees, either by revision or reasoned rebuttal, before we make a decision on publication.
When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them.
To submit a revision, please go to http://ees.elsevier.com/jsv/ and login as an Author.
Your username is: ********
Your password is: **************
On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing Revision". You will find your submission record there.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Berryman
Editorial Office (Australasia)
Journal of Sound and Vibration
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: Comments on JSV-D-06-01203
Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency method in rotor systems
By: ××, ××and ××××××
_______________________________________
The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows:
1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research.
2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area.
3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research".
4. On Section 1:
This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed.
Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration.
A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful.
5. On Section 2:
Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former.
Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed.
The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms.
6. On Sections 3 and 4:
The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs.
7. On Section 5:
The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods.
In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using rotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes.
Some of the paragraphs are too long.
8. The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research.

Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how the time-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig.
The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider:
In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered at t=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain!
What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency techniques from the literature?
Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text.