以下内容首发于微信公众号：【埃米编辑】。关注埃米编辑，写作投稿更容易~如有论文润色需求，可以联系我们哦~

投稿至期刊后，随即迎来的是同行评审的等待期，这是决定文章能否成功发表的关键阶段。审稿意见通常包括直接接收、建议修改和拒稿。其中，直接接收和拒稿的审稿意见相对明确，而建议修改则较为复杂，细分为小修、大修和修改后转投等不同情况。

若未能准确理解评审意见，错误地做出反馈，可能会严重影响论文的后续发表进程。因此，本文将提供一些常见的审稿意见，帮助作者判断到底是大修还是小修~

1 小修（Minor Revisions）

◇ This is a well-written manuscript that only needs to undergo a few minor changes. First, …

◇ The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.

◇ I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and only have some minor requests for revision.

如果收到了类似于以上列举的审稿意见，那么恭喜你，这意味着你的文章大体上符合审稿专家和期刊的要求。接下来，只需要按照具体的修改意见，进行小幅度的调整和完善即可。审稿意见可能包含以下几个方面的问题。

1） 原创性不够突出

每一篇学术论文都是作者的研究成果，原创性是其必不可少的核心要素。同样地，也要审稿专家清晰地看到你文章中所展现的原创性。

◇ The authors develop a unique theoretical framework, and I believe that they should highlight their originality much more.

2） 文献综述不完整

作为审稿专家，他们通常具备该领域坚实的专业知识背景。在初步阅读你的文章后，他们可能会建议补充一些相关领域内的文献，以确保引言部分更加全面和完整。

◇ The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.

◇ The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.

◇ The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on…

◇ The literature review is promising, but disregards recent publications in the field of…

3） 论点不清晰

一些作者写论文时，可能过于专注于研究过程的详细描述，而相对忽视了对论点的清晰归纳和总结，这样可能会导致审稿专家在审阅时，需要自行梳理和寻找论文的主要论点。

◇ The authors draw on extensive empirical evidence. I believe that they can put forward their arguments much more confidently.

4） 语言表达问题

学术论文的撰写要求严格，无论是段落的划分、句子的表达，还是某个词语的不当使用，都可能成为需要修改的内容，这一类通常属于小修。

◇ To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.

◇ I had difficulties understanding the first paragraph on page 5, and suggest that the authors reformulate and simplify it.

◇ Throughout the manuscript, there are several language mistakes. Therefore, I recommend a professional round of language editing before the paper is published.

◇ The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.

5） 图表使用不恰当

图表的规范使用也不能忽略，确保图表能够清晰表达研究内容，并且格式符合期刊的要求。

◇ Figure 3 is difficult to read and should be adjusted.

◇ Table 1 and 2 can be combined to create a better overview.

2 大修（Major Revisions）

◇ The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some major issues need to be addressed before it can be published.

◇ This manuscript addresses a timely topic and makes a relevant contribution to the field. However, some major revisions are needed before it can be published.

◇ I enjoyed reading this manuscript, and believe that it is very promising. At the same time, I identified several issues that require the authors' attention.

◇ The manuscript sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. However, it also has several shortcomings. I strongly encourage the authors to address the following points.

如果收到需要大修的审稿意见，也不用慌，这实际上说明文章已经得到了同行评审的一定认可。接下来，应认真阅读审稿意见，重视每一处修改，争取论文早日通过审核，最终成功发表。审稿意见可能包含以下几个方面的问题。

1） 关键论点需进一步阐述

◇ The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear.

◇ The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly.

2） 缺少论证

学术论文作为对科学性要求较高的文体，审稿专家在审阅时会更注重其论证的完整性。若存在论证缺失或疑问之处，专家会明确指出，并要求作者进行相应的补充和完善。

◇ The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…

◇ I encourage the authors to provide more in-depth evidence. For instance, I would like to see more interview quotes and a more transparent statistical analysis.

◇ The authors work with an interesting dataset. However, I was missing more detailed insights in the actual results. I believe that several additional tables and figures can improve the authors’ argumentation.

3） 对内容产生疑问

由于论文具体研究内容通常篇幅较大，审稿专家若在审阅过程中对其具体内容产生质疑，往往意味着论文需要进行重大修改。如果运气好的话，专家还会提供修改建议。

◇ I believe that the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and includes a timely discussion. However, I struggled to understand section 3.1.

◇ I think that the manuscript can be improved by removing section 4 and integrating it into section 5.

◇ The line of argumentation should be improved by dividing the manuscript into clear sections with subheadings.

无论是小修还是大修，都需要根据审稿意见逐条修改论文。小修通常意味着作者只需针对特定部分进行修改，并且大概率编辑不会再将论文送回同行评审。然而，大修则要求对论文进行深入的结构性调整，并且返修后，期刊通常会再次将论文送审，以确保修改是否符合要求，并检查是否出现了新的问题。

因此，要读懂同行评审的意见，理解其言外之意，对自己的论文发表负责。在论文发表的过程中，你还收到过哪些审稿意见呢？

扫描下方二维码，关注【埃米编辑】微信公众号，获取更多SCI论文写作资料。

参考资料：

[1] https://master-academia.com/reviewer-comments-examples-overview/?expand_article=1#aioseo-examples-of-reject-reviewer-comments