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 showif 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 ratio7、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 problem8、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 nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he 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 str ongly 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 matte r of your paper go over the paper and correct it.◆the quality of English needs improving.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 Biomat erials.◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见Ms. Ref. No.:Title:Materials Science and EngineeringDear Dr. ,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance, reviewers&39; comments are appended below.Reviewer 1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits:1 the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2 some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles there are several examples published, which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ;Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal这是一篇全过程我均比较了解的投稿,稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的,中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某核心期刊,并很快得到发表;其时我作为审稿人之一,除了提出一些修改建议外,还特建议了5篇应增加的参考文献,该文正式发表时共计有参考文献25篇;作者或许看到审稿意见还不错,因此决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿;几经修改和补充后,请一位英文“功底"较好的中国人翻译,投稿后约3周,便返回了三份审稿意见;从英文刊的反馈意见看,这篇稿件中最严重的问题是文献综述和引用不够,其次是语言表达方面的欠缺,此外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的不足;感想：一篇好的论文,从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢;附1：中译审稿意见审稿意见—11 英文表达太差,尽管意思大致能表达清楚,但文法错误太多;2 文献综述较差,观点或论断应有文献支持;3 论文读起来像是XXX的广告,不知道作者与XXX是否没有关联;4 该模式的创新性并非如作者所述,目前有许多XX采取此模式如美国地球物理学会,作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的创新点;5 该模式也不是作者所说的那样成功……审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析审稿意见—21 缺少直接相关的文献引用如…;2 写作质量达不到美国学术期刊的标准; 审稿意见—31 作者应着重指出指出本人的贡献;2 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析;3 需要采用表格和图件形式展示数据材料;Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by two reviewers, and their comments are as follows:The Comments by the First ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 68Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments: In the present work the authors introduce a new energy-based aromaticity measure. Referred as restricted geometry optimization, the extra stabilization energy ESE is calculated by means of an energy scheme in which the different double bonds are localized. This methodology is applied to different sets of aromatic systems, and the results are compared to previous already existing schemes. This procedure seems to work better than previous ones, however it must be underlined that with a much greater complexity. It avoids having to choose a reference structure, and it is worth noticing that benzene appears to be the most aromatic system. Thus the method presented might mean a new contribution to the different aromacity criteria, however before acceptance for publication I would recommend important changes to be taken into account in the manuscript.The new method used is not presented in a comprehensible way. In the second paragraph of the Introduction the authors should already describe it, and not first presenting the results for benzene and not going into the method till the second section. The formulas used must be described precisely as well. So I would recommend that before acceptance the manuscript should be rewritten in order to make it more comprehensible not only to physical chemists but also to the experimental chemical community, and at the same time to improve the English used.Other minor points are:- First line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in organic chemistry, but most of organic compounds are not Introduction, line 4: notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, howevergeometry-based HOMA, magnetic-based NICS and electronic-based SCI, PDI methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.- Section , last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2This should be pointed out in the manuscript.- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8. Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006The Comments by the Second ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 67Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate StabilizationEnergies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments:Comments on the manuscript "Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types" by Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng BaoAuthors propose a restricted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity. The approach is interesting and has certain merits. My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand, mainly because of poor English. A substantial revision in this respect would be beneficiary.各位：新的恶战开始了;投往JASA的文章没有被拒,但被批得很凶;尽管如此,审稿人和编辑还是给了我们一个修改和再被审的机会;我们应当珍惜这个机会, 不急不火;我们首先要有个修改的指导思想;大家先看看审稿意见吧;-----邮件原件-----Manuscript 07-04147:Editor's Comments:This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayedabove. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers,each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. Themain points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent acrossthe reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introductionneeds to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you proposeto answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale for selecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focus on how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The results section is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfy the reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhaps consolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readers would take your word that these were nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other work where they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first results as late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by thereviewers about the design. The most notable but not the only problem isthat there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be comparedat nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that atleast floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely tosignificantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listenersare tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance wasextremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-maskerratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the olderlisteners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvagedif you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratiofor the older listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it.I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that itprecludes publication of theolder versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscriptand the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impression comparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensationlevels at which the older and younger groups listened if the target wasfixed at 56 dBA.The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in your lab, and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of datawere differentThere, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is notvarying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviews point out, your conditions present brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target, may change the energetic masking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the same time. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performance substantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very differentthan those when the target is at verylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedence effect, particularly the perception of "echoes" at the longer delays. Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breakingapart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and Parks 1961. To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions. However, it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.I think there are several options for you to consider: 1 If you think itis very important to publish all the data you have right now, you could withdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.2 You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision thatincludes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity ofthe older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you, I don't think this is a promising alternative. 3 You could collect more data onolder listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better.With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such datawere collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, itcould be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision wouldbe sent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that a manuscript even with these new data would be judged favorably by the reviewers. 4 Youcould drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit amuch shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on thenoise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking fromthe data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale forwhat your specific question is about release from masking, why yourconditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worryabout how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. 5 You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider amore straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask witholder listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternativesdescribed will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whateveryou decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully asthey have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improvingthe presentation.Sincerely yours,Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments:Reviewer 1 Evaluations:Reviewer 1 Good Scientific Quality:No. See attachedReviewer 1 Appropriate Journal:YesReviewer 1 Satisfactory English/References:No.Reviewer 1 Tables/Figures Adequate:No.Reviewer 1 Concise:No.Reviewer 1 Appropriate Title and Abstract:No, because the term "interval-target interval" in the title requiredfurther explanation.MS: 07-04147Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informationalmasking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults."This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger andolder listeners, as a function of inter-target interval ITI in two maskerconditions speech masking and noise masker. The same target speech waspresented from two different locations simultaneously in two differentmaskers, one from each location L or R. Results show that release frominformational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners whenthe ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:&x2022; The general impression is that the introduction section isunnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained.&x2022; The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping fromplace to place. For example, the authors spent pages on reverberationand the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-pageto talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.&x2022; In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of thestudy and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentionedthat "the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech fromspeech masking or noise masking." However, they did not explain how and why manipulating ITI can address their questions, questions that were not clearly stated anywhere in the paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation wasgiven regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results in different conditions can answer the questions under investigation.2. Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate and precise:&x2022; Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.&x2022; At the beginning of the result section for both the younger and older groups, the authors should clearly present the number of factors included in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor and which ones were within-subject factors. Main effects and interaction 3-way and 2-way should also be reported clearly.&x2022; Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however, no pvalue was reported.&x2022; The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p= is "marginally significant."&x2022; When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference betweenthe 64 ms ITI and other ITI valuesFor example, in the statement "...thereleaseamount was % under the speech-masking condition,...", do you mean " percentage points"3. Baseline condition is questionable:&x2022; The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking on as"...the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percent difference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identification at the ITI of 64 ms the longest ITI in this study."&x2022; It took me a while to understand what this means, and finally came up with the interpretation if my interpretation is correct of the data for the authors. It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms, the perceived spatial location is between the two maskers spatial separation. But when the ITI was 32and/or 64 ms, listeners heard two images one from each side and there was no spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on either side. Therefore, according to the authors, the release from masking is the performance difference between the ITI conditions when listeners heard onlyone image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditionswhere two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have aproblem with the baseline condition 64 ms ITI in which two images wereperceived. If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delayecho between the two targetsIf so, the poor performance in the 64 mscondition can be partially due to the confusion/disruption induced by theecho in noise conditions in addition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and the masker.4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:&x2022; The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study andclaimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However, readingthe fine details of their hearing thresholds < 45 dB HL between 125 and 4kHz, it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normallimits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hzand mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz see Fig. 1 in thesesubjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results inrelation to the threshold differences between the two groups.&x2022; The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It isnecessary to provide individual threshold data at least for the oldergroup in a table format.5. Language problem:&x2022; I understand that English is not the authors' native language. Itis recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading themanuscript before submission.6. Tables and Figures:&x2022; Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presentedin Fig. 7&x2022; The authors should provide legends in the figures.&x2022; The authors should provide error bars in the graphs in Fig 1.&x2022; It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2&x2022; The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis inFig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data.&x2022; Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in thetext.Specific comments this is by no means a complete list:first par: The quote from Knudsen 1929 is not necessary.first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list ofreferences in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative.last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a targetspeech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the target speech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible, please rewrite.first line, first par. "Masking particularly information masking oftarget speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc tofacilitate his/her selective attention to the targetspeech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence.line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevant information..., therefore may cause more speech-recognition difficulties" This sentence is coming out of the blue without further explanation.p. 8-10. Please explain the terms "inter-loudspeaker interval","inter-masker interval", "inter-target interval" before using them.line 11 "Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantly influenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effectof changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible.line 2 "The 36 young university students all had normal and balanced...." Change "balance" to "symmetrical."p. 12 line 8 "Direct English translations of the sentences are similar butnot identical to the English nonsense sentences that were developed by Helfer 1997 and also used in studies by Freyman et al. 1999, 2001, 2004 and Li et al. 2004." I thought the sentences were created by the authors. So, are they a direct translation from the English version or created by the authorslast par "For the two-source target presentation,...." This came out ofthe blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.line 8 "During a session, the target-speech sounds were presented at a level such that each loudspeaker, playing alone, would produce a sound pressure of 56 dBA." Is this the rms level of speechThe level at 56 dBAseems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listenersgiven that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation levellast line "There were 36 17+1x2 testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32 15+1x2 testing conditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscriptline 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experimentsunder the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from Front Right Or left. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point 2.line 12-13 "A 2 masker type by 15 ITI within-subject ANOVA confirmsthat the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the main effects.line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a"self-masking" effect in noiselast par first line "Specifically, when the SNR was -4 dB, changing theITI absolute value from 64 to 0 ms led to only a small improvement in target-speech intelligibility, and the improvement was similar between the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition." The amount of release from masking in the speech masker condition at -4 dB SNR may be limited by the ceiling effect.line 5 "In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improvedspeech recognition under both the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition..."It is hard to tell if there is a significant difference among the ITIconditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect.line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in older adults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is 16 ms or 32 ms, cues induced by the integrationof leading and lagging target signals were weaker and/or not be well used in older participants." First, the author should take into account the hearing loss in the older group. Second, this conclusion seems somewhat contradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived images of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for oneyounger subject perceived twoseparate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image.2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on earchannel acoustics came out of nowhere.Reviewer 2 Evaluations:Reviewer 2 Good Scientific Quality:Generally yes - see general remarks below.Reviewer 2 Appropriate Journal:YesReviewer 2 Satisfactory English/References:Clarity and conciseness could be improved - see general remarks.The referencing is occasionally excessive, . the 17 references providedto back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, orp28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of these long lists of citations see JASA guidelines.The English is satisfactory, with lots of minor comments see 'detailed comments' belowReviewer 2 Tables/Figures Adequate:The figures would benefit from being redrawn using appropriategraph-plotting software. In their current form, they are quite pixelated.The figures would benefit from a legend, when there are several symbols used on the same graphs.Figure 2 and Figure 3's x-axes should be suitably non-linear, because the points plotted for ITIs between -10 and 10 ms are illegible.Figure 3 is perhaps largely repeats information that is apparent in Figure2. Also, the top panel is perhaps misleading, as the difference between the two conditions could be explained to some degree by a ceiling effect. Theuse of symmetry in Figure 3 should be applied to Figure 2, since we had no reason to expect left-right effects.Tables 1 and 2 should be omitted, since all their information is provided ina Figure.。
