现在期刊作者常常被告知：你稿件的英文不过关，我们决定不送审。有的期刊更加过分，无理要求作者提供英语润色证明，否则不送审。（我没有编造，因为我见过。）

不过，今天遇到的情况有点“特殊”。

 

 ［注解：以下的中文是Google翻译＋我的“匆匆”编译。］

 

Today, I was asked to comment on “how to write a peer review of a manuscript.” I thought Google must know the answer (which is faster than I can type up my own writing). Sure enough, I found the article below (quite a few lines below).

 

今天，有朋友问我“如何撰写期刊稿件的同行评审。”我认为谷歌一定知道（这比我自己写要快）。果然，我发现了下面的文章（好几行后面）。

 

My editor friend’s problem is unique in a way, but common for English journals “hosted” by Chinese, that is, some reviewers’ English and manners are not professional. To deal with this situation, each English journal could provide a short list as a guideline for reviewers (such a guideline for authors can been found at many websites). The guideline should state that the editorial office reserves the rights to do copy editing of a review to ensure effective communication between reviewers and editors/authors, and to remove any offensive languages in the writing to ensure fair treatment to the author(s).

 

这位编辑朋友的问题有点特殊，但这对中国人办的英文期刊来说，应该很常见，即一些审稿人的英语和口气不够好。面对这种情况下，英文期刊编辑部可以提供一个简短的审稿人指南（类似的作者指南可以在许多网站上找到）。在审稿人指南中，强调编辑部保留对审稿意见进行文字编辑的权利，以确保评审稿人和编辑/作者之间的有效沟通，并有权删除任何令人反感的语言，以确保对作者的公平对待。

 

Clearly, this is extra workload for the editorial office, but it may be necessary. (By the way, I often help my clients polish replies, but from time to time I am also asked to edit reviews. So, maybe more reviewers should consider using an editing service, not that I need more work/income.)

 

显然，这给编辑部增加了工作量，但可能必须这样做。 （顺便提一下，我经常帮助我的客户润色审稿意见回复，但我也曾经为审稿人润色过审稿意见。也许，一些审稿人应该考虑使用润色服务，这绝不是因为我需要更多的润色工作/收入。）

 

如何撰写期刊稿件的评审意见

How to write a peer review of a manuscript

 

http://www.phd2published.com/2012/05/09/how-to-write-a-peer-review-for-an-academic-journal-six-steps-from-start-to-finish-by-tanya-golash-boza/

 

PhD2Published has several informative posts about writing journal articles, and more recently has featured a post outlining a potentially revolutionary collaborative peer review process for this kind of publishing. Today’s post offers an alternative perspective; that of the journal article peer reviewer. Doing peer reviews provides important experience for those writing their own papers and may help writers consider what they should include based on what peer reviewers are looking for.

 

At some point in your scholarly career, you likely will get asked to review an article for a journal. In this post, I explain how I usually go about doing a peer review. I imagine that each scholar has their own way of doing this, but it might be helpful to talk openly about this task, which we generally complete in isolation.

在您的学术生涯中，您可能会被要审期刊的稿件。在这篇文章中，我解释了我通常如何进行同行评审。我想每位学者都有自己的方式来做这件事，但公开谈论这件事可能会对大家有所帮助，因为我们通常私下完成审稿。

第一步：接受同行评审邀请。

Step One:  Accept the invitation to peer review. The first step in reviewing a journal article is to accept the invitation. When deciding whether or not to accept, take into consideration three things: 1) Do you have time to do the review by the deadline? 2) Is the article within your area of expertise? 3) Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline? Once you accept the invitation, set aside some time in your schedule to read the article and write the review.

 

第二步：阅读稿件。

Step Two: Read the article. I usually read the article with a pen in hand so that I can write my thoughts in the margins as I read. As I read, I underline parts of the article that seem important, write down any questions I have, and correct any mistakes I notice.

 

第三步：撰写一个关于此研究的简短评论，包括哪些是新的结果。

Step Three: Write a brief summary of the article and its contribution. When I am doing a peer review, I sometimes do it all in one sitting – which will take me about two hours – or I read it one day and write it the next. Often, I prefer to do the latter to give myself some time to think about the article and to process my thoughts. When writing a draft of the review, the first thing I do is summarize the article as best I can in three to four sentences. If I think favorably of the article and believe it should be published, I often will write a longer summary, and highlight the strengths of the article. Remember that even if you don’t have any (or very many) criticisms, you still need to write a review. Your critique and accolades may help convince the editor of the importance of the article. As you write up this summary, take into consideration the suitability of the article for the journal. If you are reviewing for the top journal in your field, for example, an article simply being factually correct and having a sound analysis is not enough for it to be published in that journal. Instead, it would need to change the way we think about some aspect of your field.

 

第四步：写下你对这篇稿件的主要批评。

Step Four: Write out your major criticisms of the article. When doing a peer review, I usually begin with the larger issues and end with minutiae. Here are some major areas of criticism to consider:

–          Is the article well-organized?

–          Does the article contain all of the components you would expect (Introduction, Methods, Theory, Analysis, etc)?

–          Are the sections well-developed?

–          Does the author do a good job of synthesizing the literature?

–          Does the author answer the questions he/she sets out to answer?

–          Is the methodology clearly explained?

–          Does the theory connect to the data?

–          Is the article well-written and easy to understand?

–          Are you convinced by the author’s results? Why or why not?

第五步：写下对稿件的任何（不太主要的）批评。

Step Five: Write out any minor criticisms of the article.  Once you have laid out the pros and cons of the article, it is perfectly acceptable (and often welcome) for you to point out that the table on page 3 is mislabeled, that the author wrote “compliment” instead of “complement” on page 7, or other minutiae. Correcting those minor errors will make the author’s paper look more professional if it goes out for another peer review, and certainly will have to be corrected before being accepted for publication.

 

第六步：理顺你写的评审意见。

 

Step Six: Review. Go over your review and make sure that it makes sense and that you are communicating your critiques and suggestions in as helpful a way as possible.

 

仔细阅读您写的评审意见，并确保其逻辑性。尽可能以“助人为乐”的方式传达你的批评和建议。

 

Finally, I will say that, when writing a review, be mindful that you are critiquing the article in question – not the author. Thus, make sure your critiques are constructive. For example, it is not appropriate to write: “The author clearly has not read any Foucault.” Instead, say: “The analysis of Foucault is not as developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal article.” Also, be careful not to write: “The author is a poor writer.” Instead, you can say: “This article would benefit from a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the author’s argument due to the many stylistic and grammatical errors.” Although you are an anonymous reviewer, the Editor knows who you are, and it never looks good when you make personal attacks on others. So, in addition to being nice, it is in your best interest.

最后，我要说的是，在撰写评审意见时，请注意你是批评文章的问题，而不是作者本人。因此，请确保你的批评是建设性的。例如，这种评论是不恰当的：“作者显然没有读过任何关于xxx的文章。” 你应该说：“对xxx的分析并不像我期望的那样。” 此外，不要写这种评论：“作者英语太烂。” 你可以说：“这篇文章将受益于英文润色。由于许多写作风格和语法上的错误，我发现很难理解你的论点。”  虽然你是一位匿名审稿人，但编辑知道你是谁。当你对作者进行人身攻击时，别人不会喜欢。所以，应该尊重作者，这对你的事业也有益。（谁知道以后你的儿媳妇会不会是作者的女儿呢！）

 

Tanya Golash-Boza is  Associate Professor of Sociology and American Studies at the University of Kansas. She Tweets as @tanyagolashboza and has her own website.

 

 

相关专题：论文写作
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自虞左俊科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-1147092.html

上一篇：推荐Style Toward Clarity and Grace by Joseph M. Williams
下一篇：科技英语写作基础（系列）：语态 (1)