武夷山分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/Wuyishan 中国科学技术发展战略研究院研究员;南京大学信息管理系博导

博文

英文论文评审意见汇总(6)

已有 1267 次阅读 2021-11-12 06:50 |个人分类:科学计量学研究|系统分类:观点评述

英文论文评审意见汇总(6)

武夷山

 

第一则

2011年4月6日

 

Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication:

 

In many cases, projects initiated by public agencies often fail to achieve the popularity they deserve in comparison with commercial initiatives, despite the technological advantages of the former. WorlWideScience.org is no exception in this regard. For instance, the authors said with excitement that “ WWS.org web traffic quickly saw a corresponding jump in pageviews, going from less than 50,000 per month (before topic pages were deployed) to immediately over 100,000 per month (after topic pages were indexed).”

 

In fact, it is not an impressive achievement, because my personal blog attracts roughly the same amount of hits from unduplicated individual visitors per month (That is to say, no matter how many pieces of my blog articles are read by a single visitor, it is counted as only 1 hit by the blog administrator). If counted in pageviews, then my blog gets at least 140,000 to 150,000 hits per month.

 

Therefore, in order to prove that this is a wonderful performance, it is better to find a similar platform as a reference point. Then the authors could demonstrate that even 100,000 pageviews have been a goal difficult enough to achieve by making comparison with the performance of the reference platform.

 

第二则

2017年5月7日

The paper “Classifying Patents by Tracing the Chronology of Patent Citation Increments is an excellent contribution. Taking the time distribution of patent citations into account when evaluating patent impact is a task that should be put on agenda long ago. The methods adopted are suitable and the analysis clear. The discussion on the potential application of this classification is to the point.

 

第三则

博主说明:下面是对国内机构办的一家英文刊物之来稿的评审意见。因为我知道作者是中国人,就用中文写评审意见了。

 

 

本文选题较好,但概念不太清楚,英语表达问题较多,很多地方的意思难以理解。

从概念上说,作者经常(1)将信息产业与科技情报事业相混淆;(2)information与intelligence相混淆,如,P5,“It also has gradually attracted attention in intelligence agencies and technology”,总标题用S & T information表示科技情报,此处用intelligence agencies表示情报机构,这样的话,外国读者绝对无法理解。全文应该用统一的概念、统一的表达;(3)将战略评估与赋能评估相混淆,表现在举例上;(4)将科技评估与赋能评估相混淆,表现在举例上;(5)将evaluation与assessment相混淆。如果作者认为这两个词是同义词,则需要论证,而且在文献综述时,选择什么样的文献就得谨慎,因为被引用文献的作者也许是认真区分evaluation与assessment这两个词的,你不能曲解人家的概念。

文章并没有给读者一个清晰的图景:科技情报治理的赋能评价到底是什么样子?也没能给出一个合适的例子,无论中外。

综上,建议退稿。

下面是文字表达不当的几个小例子,供作者参考。

 

1.  不能把中文稿简单地译为英文了事,一定要考虑到国际读者的理解程度。比如,第一句话出现的“创新驱动发展战略”都没注明是中国的战略,好像各国都是这个战略似的。

2.  “empowerment” has become a common language”,赋权是一个概念,不是语言,故这样表达不合适,改为become a consensus之类较好。

3.  P3,“distinguish between them”,语法不通,意思不清。

4.  P6,‘to ensure that its assessment is not justified as much as possible’,意思肯定错了,改为not biased?

5.  P6,“The multi-party collaborative evaluation mechanism after the innovation made up for the OTA's original scientific and technological evaluation limitations”,此句不通。

6.  P7,不知“information objects”对应的中文是什么?这样的表达似乎有问题。客体怎么能开展活动?

7.  另外,作者似乎用subject表示主体,也不合适,entities可能好些。

 




https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-1312042.html

上一篇:边听边看,“沉浸式”理解音乐
下一篇:《光明日报》的“网上网下”栏目2009年间摘引的我的话

1 杨正瓴

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2022-5-21 12:03

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部