英文论文审稿意见汇总之老阳三干创作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沛.◆ 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 experimentsshould be provided.3、对研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈说结论/夸年夜功效/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/界说概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的界说：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沛地写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 algorithmwith 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（重视水平）：◆ 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（呈现最多的问题）：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 ofthe 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.来自编纂的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greaterdepth 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.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' comments are appended below.Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review onmicromulsion-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力了解的投稿,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,并很快获得发表.其时我作为审稿人之一,除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,因此决意检验考试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿.几经修改和弥补后,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,另外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的缺乏.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—1(1) 英文表达太差,尽管意思年夜致能表达清楚,但文法毛病太多.(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) 该模式的立异性其实不是如作者所述,目前有许多XX采用此模式（如美国地球物理学会）,作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的立异点.(5) 该模式也不是作者所说的那样胜利……(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)审稿意见—2(1) 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—3(1) 作者应着重指出指出自己的贡献.(2) 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析.(3) 需要采纳表格和图件形式展示(数据)资料.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 worthnoticing 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 notgoing 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 aromatic.- Introduction, line 4:notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, however geometry-based (HOMA), magnetic-based (NICS) and electronic-based (SCI, PDI) methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.- Section 3.1, last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2? This 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-2006******** *********************************The 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 Types Corresponding 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,审稿人和编纂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.年夜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 displayed above. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers, each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. The main points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent across the reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introduction needs to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you propose to answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale forselecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focuson how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The resultssection is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfythe reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhapsconsolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readers would take your word thatthesewere nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other workwhere they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first resultsas late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by the reviewers about the design. The most notable (but not the only problem) is that there are no conditions where young and olderlisteners can be compared at nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that at least floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely to significantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listeners are tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance was extremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-masker ratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the older listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvaged if you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratio for 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 it precludes publication of t!heolder versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscript and the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impressioncomparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensation levels at which the older and younger groups listened (if the target was fixed 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 thepatterns of data were different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is not varying 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 performancesubstantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very different than those when the target is at v! erylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength ofthe 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 breaking apart 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 it is very important to publish all the data you have right now, you couldwithdraw 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 that includes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity of the 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 on older listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better. With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such data were collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, it could be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision would be sent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that amanuscript evenwith these newdata would be judged favorably by the reviewers. (4) You could drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit a much shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on the noise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking from the data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale for what your specific question is about release from masking, why your conditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worry about how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. (5) You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider a more straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask with older listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternatives described will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whatever you decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully as they have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improving the presentation.Sincerely yours, Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations:Reviewer #1 (Good Scientific Quality):No. See attached Reviewer #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 thetitle required further explanation.MS#: 07-04147 Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informational masking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults." This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger and older listeners, as a function of inter-target interval (ITI) in two masker conditions (speech masking and noise masker). The same target speech was presented from two different locations simultaneously in two different maskers, one from each location (L or R). Results show that release from informational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners when the ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:• The general impression is that the introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained. • The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping from place to place. For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberation and the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-page to talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.• In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of the study and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentioned that "the present study investigated whether changing theITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech from speech 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 inthe paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation was given 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:• Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.• At the beginning of the result section for both the younger andolder 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. • Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however, no pvalue was reported. • The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p=0.084 is "marginallysignificant."• When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference between the 64 ms ITI and other ITI values? For example, in the statement "...the releaseamount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition,...", do you mean "31.9 percentage points"?3. Baseline condition is questionable:• The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking (on p.19) 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)." • 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, theperceived spatial location is between the two maskers (spatial separation). But when the ITI was 32 and/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 only one image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditions where two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have a problem with the baseline condition (64 ms ITI in which two images were perceived). If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delay (echo) between the two targets? If so, the poor performance in the 64 ms condition can be partially due to theconfusion/disruption induced by the echo in noise conditions inaddition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and themasker.4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:• The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study and claimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However, reading the fine details of their hearing thresholds (< 45 dB HL between 125 and 4k Hz), it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normal limits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hz and mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz (see Fig. 1) in these subjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results in relation to the threshold differences between the two groups.• The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It is necessary to provide individual threshold data (at least for the older group) in a table format.5. Language problem:• I understand that English is not the authors' native language. It is recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading the manuscript before submission.6. Tables and Figures:• Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presented in Fig. 7 • The authors should provide legends in the figures.• The authors should provide error bars in thegraphs in Fig 1. • It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2 • The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis in Fig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data. • Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in the text.Specific comments (this is by no means a complete list):p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen (1929) is not necessary.p.4 first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list of references in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative. p.4 last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a target speech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the targetspeech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible,please rewrite. p.5 first line, first par. "Masking (particularly information masking) of target speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues (perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc) to facilitate his/her selective attention to the target speech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence. p.5 line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevantinformation..., 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.p.11 line 11 "Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantlyinfluenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effect of changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible. p.11 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 but not 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 theauthors?p.13 last par "For the two-source target presentation,...." This came out of the blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.p.15 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 speech? The level at 56 dBA seems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listeners given that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation level? p.15 last line "There were 36 ((17+1)x2) testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32 ((15+1)x2) testingconditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscript? p.16 line 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experiments under the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from? Front? Right? Or left? p.17-27. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point #2. p.23 line 12-13 "A 2 (masker type) by 15 (ITI) within-subject ANOVA confirms that the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the main effects. p.29 line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a "self-masking" effect in noise?p.30 last par first line "Specifically, when the SNR was -4 dB, changing the ITI (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. p.31 line 5 "In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improved speech 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 ITI conditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect. p.31 line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in olderadults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is (16 ms or 32 ms), cues induced by the integration of 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 somewhatcontradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived image(s) of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for one younger subject perceived two separate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image. p.32 2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on ear channel 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, e.g. the 17 references provided to back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, or p28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of。
