第一篇：從一篇投稿的三份評審意見看中外期刊的審稿差異

從一篇投稿的三份評審意見看

中外期刊的審稿差異

這是一篇全過程我均比較了解的投稿，稿件的內(nèi)容我認為是相當(dāng)不錯的，中文版投稿于業(yè)內(nèi)有較高影響的某核心期刊，并很快得到發(fā)表。其時我作為審稿人之一，除了提出一些修改建議外，還特建議了5篇應(yīng)增加的參考文獻，該文正式發(fā)表時共計有參考文獻25篇。

作者或許看到審稿意見還不錯，因此決意嘗試向美國某學(xué)會主辦的一份英文刊投稿。幾經(jīng)修改和補充后，請一位英文“功底”較好的中國人翻譯，投稿后約3周，便返回了三份審稿意見。從英文刊的反饋意見看，這篇稿件中最嚴(yán)重的問題是文獻綜述和引用不夠，其次是語言表達方面的欠缺，此外是論證過程和結(jié)果展示形式方面的不足。感想：一篇好的論文，從內(nèi)容到形式都需要精雕細琢。

附1：中譯審稿意見

審稿意見—1

(1)英文表達太差，盡管意思大致能表達清楚，但文法錯誤太多。

(2)文獻綜述較差，觀點或論斷應(yīng)有文獻支持。

(3)論文讀起來像是XXX的廣告，不知道作者與XXX是否沒有關(guān)聯(lián)。

(4)該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多XX采取此模式（如美國地球物理學(xué)會），作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析XXX運作模式的創(chuàng)新點。

(5)該模式也不是作者所說的那樣成功……(審稿人結(jié)合論文中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析)審稿意見—2

(1)缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻引用(如…)。

(2)寫作質(zhì)量達不到美國學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

審稿意見—3

(1)作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻。

(2)缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。

(3)需要采用表格和圖件形式展示(數(shù)據(jù))材料。

附2：英文審稿意見(略有刪節(jié))

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

This be 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.本文引用地址：http:///blog/user_content.aspx?id=49070