国人一篇文章投国际知名杂志的审稿意见，大家来学习一些注意的问题

作为审稿人，本不应该把编辑部的这些信息公开（冒风险啊），
但我觉得有些意见值得广大虫子注意，
就贴出来吧，当然，有关审稿人的名字，Email，文章题名信息等就都删除了，
以免造成不必要的麻烦！

希望虫子们多评价，其他有经验的审稿人能常来指点大家！

国人一篇文章投Mater.类知名国际杂志，
被塞尔维亚一审稿人打25分！
个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，
所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！
登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，
详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！

两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！
（括号斜体内容为我注解）


Reviewer 4

Reviewer Recommendation Term:  Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating:  25
Comments to Editor:  Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.

Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.
Name: XXX
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。"  it has been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form.  
1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but:
- the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的）
- it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
-  it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).
（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）

2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors
- state that XXXXX
- state that XXXX
- This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size?
（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）

3. When discussing luminescence measurements  authors write "XXXXXIf there is second harmonic in excitation beam it will stay there no matter what type of material one investigates!!!

（研究了什么？？？）
4.英语写作要提高
（这条很多人的软肋，大家努力啊）

Reviewer 5

Reviewer Recommendation Term:  Reject
Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating:  N/A
Comments to Editor:
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.)rof.
Name:（国人）
Affiliation: XXXXXXXXxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxx
Dear editor:

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled "XXXX“. In this paper, the authors investigated the influences of sintering condition on the crystal structure and XXXXXX， However, it is difficult for us to understand the manuscript because of poor English being used.
The text is not well arranged and the logic is not clear. Except English writing, there are many mistakes in the manuscript and the experimental results don't show good and new results. So I recommend to you that this manuscript can not be accepted. The following are the questions and some mistakes in this manuscript:
（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）

1.     TheXXXXXXX. However, this kind material had been investigated since 1997 as mentioned in the author's manuscript, and similar works had been published in similar journals. What are the novel findings in the present work? The synthesis method and luminescence properties reported in this manuscript didn't supply enough evidence to support the prime novelty statement.
（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！
朋友们也看到了，一稿多发，中文，英文双版发表在网络时代太难了，运气不好审稿人也是国人，敢情曾经看过你的文章，所以必死无疑，这位作者老兄就命运差了，刚好被审稿人看见，所以毫无疑问被拒，（呵呵，我97年刚上初一没见到这个文章，哈哈））
2.     In page 5, the author mentioned that: "XXXX  Based on our knowledge, "sintering" describes the process when the powders become ceramics. So, I think the word "synthesis" should be better instead of "sintering" here. Second, the XRD patterns didn't show obvious difference between three "sintering" temperatures of 700, 800 and 900 C.
（作者老兄做工作太不仔细了，虫子们可别犯啊）
3.     Also in the page X, the author mentioned that: XXX。。。。。。。。。。 However, the author didn't supply the morphologies of particles at different synthesizing temperatures. What are the experimental results or the references which support the author's conclusion that the XXXX properties would be influenced by the particle size?
（作者仍在瞎说，这个问题我也指出了，不光我还是看着国人的份上让修改，添加很多东西，说实话，文章看的很累很累）
4.    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   However, to my knowledge, after the milling, the particles size will be decreased exactly, but how and what to destroy the host structure?
（虫子们自己注意）
5.     XXX on the vertical axis of the XRD patterns was meaningless, because author add several patterns in one figure.  It is obvious that these spectra are not measured by ordinary methods. （都是老问题，不说了）

花了一个多小时整理出来，
虽然我很忙，但还是希望其他虫子能多注意，不要被类似的问题三番五次出现而遭毙稿！
最后恭祝大家多发文章，多多评价本文！谢谢！
本帖原创，版主大哥，够不够精华贴的资格啊？
从来没发过精华贴，崇拜中.....................