审稿意见模板3300字.docx

    审稿意见模板3300字    Referee Report 2012-4-15审稿意见要求：1简单综述本文工作，可从文章中直接摘取2提出论文的问题，包括内容，推导，格式，图表，语法等例子1In this paper, the distribution synchronization problem is studied for coupled neural networks with multiple randomly occurring nonlinearities (MRONs), multiple Randomly occurring controllers (MROCs), and multiple randomly occurring updating laws(MROULs). The motivation behind the problem investigated in this manuscript is interesting and meaningful, the manuscript has little expository and technical shortcomings, as detailed in the follows.(1) The consideration of the MROULs is one of the innovations of this paper, theauthor stated that the ROULs in adaptive controllers is widely neglected in the existing literature, however the meaning of the MROULs is not described in detail, it is necessary for the author to illustrate which application contains the MROULs? Furthermore, it is better to give the readers one or two examples for this case.(2) Some grammar and spelling errors need to be checked carefully. Such as in figure1 the eij for vertical coordinates should be typed by Latex format.(3) In general, it is lack of explanations and analysis for simulation results in the study,so more explanations is needed.In conclusion, the manuscript is innovated and interesting, it could be published with minor changes.例子2This manuscript mainly considers finite-time input-to-state-stability for the multiagent systems with communication noise under switching interaction topologies. This study has more practical value because it deals with the finite-time consensus problems of the groups of agents using a different method to proof the results from the references in this manuscript. However there exist some expository short comings as detailed in the follows.1 There are some concepts introduced before the main results, some of them are not clear because it does not have detailed explanation about some symbols such as D+ in the definition 2.2 This manuscript is lack of simulation to illustrate the effectiveness. I suggest that the author gives simulation and explain the construction of the ISS-Lyapunov function and the selections of some K-functions and K?-functions in details.3 There are some small mistakes in this manuscript and need more corrections. One of the obvious errors is in the line above the formula (9).1Referee Report 2012-4-15例子3This paper investigates the problem of dynamic feedback control over unreliable communication channels with nonstationary packet loss. The zero input scheme and the hold input scheme are used to solve this problem respectively. However, I don’t think the manuscript is constructive for the zero input scheme and the hold input scheme are investigated in many reference. Finally, there are not enough innovatory ideas in this manuscript. The detailed comments are as follows.1 the quality of figure1 is too poor to read.2 the definition of equation 7 is confused, why the author give this definition. 3 equation 15 is wrong, in fact it is an inequality.4 we don’t think the variable below equation 17 can be gotten by equation 75 we want to know what the relation between the zero input scheme and the hold input is. The relation and the compare should be proposed in detail between the two schemes in this manuscript if it can be accepted.2第二篇：审稿意见模板 17300字如何学习审稿专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。

审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。

这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为其次是要具备科学技能审稿人面临的挑战是，要发现那些作者本人没有发现的东西这是一项艰巨的任务，需要两项科学技能，一是对文献有全面掌握，即熟悉进展，又熟悉经典；二是掌握相关的科学知识，能够将科理和科学发现应用到新的科学研究中当然，审稿人也会碰到自己不熟悉的知识点，这时可以向他人请教、学习，或者谢绝审稿，请编辑另找他人。

第三要有乐于助人的态度做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到审稿人所在学术机构或同行的认可令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量不满意的作者对审稿人会有一些负面看法：挑剔、草率、武断、教条、肤浅、傲慢、不公正、忌妒、自私自利但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够提高稿件的科学性和易读性，能够增加作者的知识，提高作者从事和报道科学研究的能力审稿时应该对作者及其工作充满敬意，要耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，但又不能“放水”提出的意见要有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；要提出明确的建议（但不一定明确是接受或拒绝）最后，审稿当然需要时间如果只读一遍，恐怕会错失重要的深入看法在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，常常需要反复斟酌不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够审稿给审稿人带来的好处，已如前述但审稿肯定会与自己的工作、甚至生活发生冲突，看病、、科研、申请课题、休假等等，不一而足。