文章修回时，需要对审稿人提出的问题作出回复。但是许多新手对于审稿人注重的问题一无所知，今天我就给大家搜集了SCI论文审稿过程中审稿人提得较多的一些问题。
关于前言
…For instance the second sentence appears to be out of the blue. Please, provide better connections between sentences.
Introduction is missing some very relevant references…
The deion of “Introduction” still needs to be improved, as some contents are redundancy while some are lacked.
How is their analysis different from the PLOS ONE paper?
At the end of the Introduction is not clear which are the innovative aspects of the research.
The authors state that “there are a few reports about proteins induced by water deficit”. Please be more precise.
How was soil sterilised? Please give some soil properties. Please give the sand: fungus ratio. How was the fungus cultivated?
I wonder whether in the introduction the Authors could add some more references on the already knowledge on drought stress and ECM.
The author should emphasize the rational for using human mesenchymal stem cell for your study in the introduction section.
The aim is not clear and not well written.
关于材料与方法
The deion of Affymetrix microarray data is not informative enough, and needs the patients’ info.
The experimental details are inadequate. No mention has been made on the source of seeds or the mycorrhizal inoculum.
There is no information on the number of replicates and the experimental design.
关于结果及图表
There are also structure errors, as methods are also being described in the “results” section and objectives in the “material and methods” section.
The caption of the tables should be more detailed…
There were too many tables and figures in this paper…
The figure is too crowded…
Probably the quality of the pictures in figure 3 could be improved in the last version.
关于讨论
Authors should avoid the first three sentences, they are part of a introduction.
Include an elaborate discussion explaining the exact significance of your findings.
Authors need to emphasize the novel insights obtained from their study.
Authors are suggested to validate these results using few more such entries.
The Discussion part was monotonous…
The deion of this part needs to be touched up in logic…
关于结论
The conclusion section should revised by definite conclusion sentence.
Only some important and significant conclusions could be revealed in this section.
总结一下，前言中最主要还是要突出文章的目的性和创新性，语句之间要有相关性和连贯性，前言与文章的主题紧密联系在一起；材料方法中要尽可能的详细；结果中不能出现材料方法，图表的设计要合理、规范、清晰；讨论中既要与前人研究挂钩，又要强调文章的结果，讨论要具有逻辑性，不能与前言混为一谈；结论要简单明了，直接得出最重要的结论。另外，还有一个硬伤就是语言问题，只要是中国人投的文章，几乎每个审稿人都会毫不客气的告诉你，The paper suffers from a poorly written English… 这时你需要认真修改文章，必要时可寻求专业的SCI论文润色机构的帮助。
转自“纽顿学术”微信公众号，本文仅作为学术交流分享，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
