任胜利的编辑之家分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/rensl Email: silei10@sina.com

博文

从一篇投稿的三份评审意见看中外期刊的审稿差异 精选

已有 35545 次阅读 2008-11-30 11:11 |个人分类:编辑出版|系统分类:科研笔记

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。

1:中译审稿意见

审稿意见—1

(1) 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—2

(1) 缺少直接相关的文献引用(…)

(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。

2:英文审稿意见(略有删节)

Reviewer: 1

There are many things wrong with this paper.

The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct.

The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references.

The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear that the author is independent of XXX.

The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model.

The model is also not as successful as the author claims. ……

Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.

Reviewer: 2

The are two major problems with this paper:

(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the "two-sided" market literature including that directly related to … (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).

(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal.

Reviewer: 3

1. The author should accentuate his contributions in this manuscript.

2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support author’s discoveries.

3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.



投稿与审稿
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-38899-49070.html

上一篇:同行评议:想说爱你不容易
下一篇:科技写作漫谈 (41):Principles of communication
收藏 分享 举报

10 武夷山 蒋新正 李飞 刘玉平 向峥嵘 王德华 俞立平 何学锋 vangue zps

发表评论 评论 (33 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2017-10-24 02:56

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2017 中国科学报社

返回顶部