基本流程

• 第一遍：略读，了解文章的目的，确保论文属于期刊范围，详细记录，查找是否有致命缺陷（缺失、无法阅读）
• 第二遍：研究细节，方法论，结论
• 第三遍：具体的建议

意见应具有建设性，而不是攻击性，用你希望别人审你稿的方式为他人审稿

阅读过程中的记录

（1）引言/文献综述部分

• 是否引用足够多的工作
• 对当前存在的问题是否有概括性的介绍
• 是否说明了本文的研究目的和大致框架

Introduction should provide background/research gap/research objectives, but the author took a lot of part to explain background.（没有写出背景/问题/目标）

Literature review is not the inventory of the studies you reviewed. This part needs more extensive works to synthesize current research and find any research gap to contribute.（引用工作不够多）

（2）方法部分

• 方法/算法/公式是否可以看懂
• 技术性问题是否有明显错误

贡献不足：The significance of this paper is not expound sufficiently. The author need to highlight this paper’s innovative contributions.

（3）实验部分

• 实验的条件设置是否写清楚
• 实验对照是否合理
• 实验的结果图表是否清晰、规范
• 实验的结果分析是否充分、合理

（4）总结部分

• 文章做了什么？
• 效果如何？
• 验证了什么？
• 未来可以深入做哪方面的工作？

CONCLUSIONS needs more in it, as it’s more of an afterthought. The authors are suggested to highlight important findings and include afterthought of this work.

（5）其它

• 语言性错误（单词错用、语法错误，语气要委婉！）

语句错误：Some sentences contain grammatical mistakes or are not complete sentences, such as, in page 1, ABSTRACT, “错误的地方” would be “正确的写法”.
拼写错误：There is at least one Spelling error in the manuscript, such as, in page 7, TABLE I, “Stabalization” would be “Stabilization”. Please check the manuscript carefully.
Your manuscript needs careful editing and particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.

审稿意见

Decision: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject & Resubmit / Reject
Overall Manuscript Rating (1-100):

第一段优点：文章针对哪个方面的问题？做了几项重要工作？取得了什么效果？

The paper is very well written, and contributes …（某种技术方案） scheme for …（应用的对象）, which enables …（这个方案带来的好处） . And the proposed scheme outperforms the state of the arts （新方法的指标比以前的好）and can …（未来可以应用于什么，前景广阔）

第二段过渡客套：There are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication. If the following problems are well-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this paper are important for （某某理论/领域).

缺点部分：参考阅读中的记录

如果一定要拒稿，必须有理有据，比如研究的数据存在问题，分析的方法存在巨大缺陷，论文创新点不足等等。

Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor