搜索
Howtopeerreview?Generalideas1.Don’tsharethemanuscriptortodiscussitindetailwithothers.Thereviewershouldmaintainconfidentiality.（对所评阅的文章必须保密）2.Toprovideanhonest,criticalassessmentofthework.Toanalyzethestrengthsandweaknesses,providesuggestionsforimprovement,andclearlystatewhatmustbedonetoraisethelevelofenthusiasmforthework.（对文章的优缺点做出评论，并明确指出应该怎么修改才能提升现有的文章质量）3.Thereviewershouldwritereviewsinacollegial,constructivemanner.Acarefullywordedreviewwithappropriatesuggestionsforrevisioncanbeveryhelpful.（以建设性的、学术性的口吻对文章进行评价，并给出建设性的修改再投递的意见）4.Supportyourcriticismsorpraisewithconcretereasonsthatarewelllaidoutandlogical.（给出的评价应该附加有支撑观点的具体原因）5.评阅步骤：(1)Readthemanuscriptcarefullyfrombeginningtoendbeforeconsideringthereview.Getacompletesenseofthescopeandnovelty.(2)Movetoanalyzingthepaperindetail,providingasummarystatementofyourfindingsanddetailedcomments.(3)Useclearreasoningtojustifyeachcriticismandhighlightgoodpointsandweakerpoints.(4)Iftherearepositiveaspectsofapoorpaper,trytofindsomewayofencouragingtheauthorwhilestillbeingclearonthereasonsforrejection.（如果被拒绝的文章中有部分闪光点，可以鼓励作者。但是要坚持拒绝的观点）(5)Apoint-by-pointcritiqueisvaluable.Foreachpoint,indicatehowcriticalitistoyouracceptingthepaper.（逐点详述你的评论，并针对没一点给出你所能接收的文章的评判标准）(6)Finally,givetheclearanswerastoyourrecommendationforpublication.!donotgivearating.（在review的最后必须给出明确的关于接收与否的回答，不要以百分度的形式给出不确切的答复）Howtopeerreviewanarticle?1.Commentonlargeissuesfirst（从整体上进行评价）(1)Mainpointclearandinteresting?(2)Isiteffectivelyorganized?(3)Areideasadequatelydeveloped?(4)Isevidenceusedproperly?(5)Istheresearchquestionclearandwelljustified?(6)Isthetechnicalapproachlogicalandrigorous?(7)Howstrongistheinferencefortheimportantconclusion?（得出结论的过程是否牵强？）(8)Aretheresultsclearandstatisticallyrigorous?(9)Doesthediscussionflowlogicallyfromtheintroduction?(10)Isthereaclearandrelevanttopicsentenceforeachparagraph?总的来说，主要是从全文的内容角度对文章的：结构组织性(wellorganized,goodstructure)、逻辑性(logical)、严谨性(rigorous)、论据的合理性(justified,reasonable)、说服力(convincing)等方面对文章进行总体评论。2.Goontosmallerissueslater（对细节进行评价，包括每一段）(1)Awkwardorconfusingsentences(2)Style(3)Grammar(4)Wordchoice(5)Proofreading（校正）(6)Clarityandcomprehensibilityofcontent(7)Accuracy(8)Readability—intermsoflogic,sequencingandflow(9)Consistency—inthecontentlanguageanduseofkeyterms总的来说，从细节部分考虑的主要是语言角度：纯从英语语言的角度对文章细节进行评价，包括语法、词法、选词是否恰当、行文是否可读(read-friendly)、是否native-like等。有的论文可以对文章的各部分进行分步细节性评论：introduction,materialandmethod,result,discussion,conclusion.3.Commentonwhethertheintroductionclearlyannouncesthetopicandsuggeststheapproachthatwillbetaken;4.Commentonwhetherideasareclearandunderstandable5.Specifyyourownfeelingsaboutwhereyou’vestuckandwhy.Howtorevisetoavoidthisstuck.6.Trytodescribewhatyouseeinthepaper:whatthemainpointandorganizationpatternyouthinkinthispaper.7.Identifywhat’smissingandneedstobeexplainedmorefully.Alsowhatcanbecut.!!!!YESorNOquestionsareviewshouldincludeandelaboratedindetails!!!!(Elaboratetheseanswersonlanguageuse,linguisticfeaturesandwording)1.Thearticletitleisappropriate.2.Theabstractaccuratelyreflectsthecontent.3.Thepurposeorthesisofthearticleisstatedclearly.4.Thepurported（声称的）significanceofthearticleisexplicitlystated.5.Thearticleadequatelytiestotherelevantliterature.6.Theresearchstudymethodsaresoundandappropriate.7.Theliteraturereviewandresearchstudymethodsareexplainedclearly.8.Theprimarythesisisarguedpersuasively.9.Thewritingisclearconciseandinteresting.10.Allfigures,tables,andphotosarenecessaryandappropriate.11.Theconclusionsorsummaryareaccurateandsupportedbythecontent.12.ThearticleisofinteresttomanyURISAmembers.ReviewerRecommendation:（最后给出的接收与否的结论）Pleaseindicatewhichofthefollowingactionsyourecommend.()1.Publish,nosignificantalterationssuggested.()2.Publish,butsuggestchangestothearticleasspecifiedinthisreview.()3.Publish,butsuggestionsasspecifiedinthisreviewmustbeaddressedbyeithermakingchangesorexplainingwhychangeswouldbeinappropriate()Checkhereifalteredarticleshouldberesubmittedtothereviewer()4.Reject,butencourageauthortotryamajorrevisionandasecondpeerreview()5.Reject,donotencouragearewriteSamplesforpeerreviewONEOnJanuary22,2007,ConradMauclairandcolleaguessubmittedamanuscriptentitled“Quantifyingtheeffectofhumicmatteronthesuppressionofmercuryemissionsfromartificialsoilsurfaces”forconsiderationtothejournalAppliedGeochemistry.Themanuscriptwassentoutbytheeditortotwopeerreviewers,whoweregivenonetotwomonthstocompletethereview.Thereviewerssentcommentstotheeditor,andafterconsideringthereviewers’comments,theeditorchosetoacceptthemanuscriptwithrevisions,andrespondedassuchtotheauthorsapproximatelyfivemonthsaftertheirinitialsubmission.Excerptsfromthelettertheeditorwrotetotheauthorsdetailingthisdecisionareprintedbelow.Editor返还给作者时的评论：总结出接收与否，并根据reviewer的意见提出editor自己的观点。关键词：issuestobeaddressed27May2007DearAuthors:Ihavereceivedtworeviewsofyourmanuscriptentitled“Quantifyingtheeffectofhumicmatteronthesuppressionofmercuryemissionsfromartificialsoilsurfaces”submittedforpublicationinAppliedGeochemistry.InadditionIhavereadyourpaperandhavesomeadditionalcommentsthatar