当审稿人是一门“技术活”——你不仅要给出专业的评价，还得让作者听得懂、改得动、不会翻脸。“太水”不行，编辑不满意；“太狠”也不行，可能打击作者信心，甚至惹出学术圈“恩怨”……
那么，如何写出清晰、建设性且专业的审稿意见？本篇文章给你提供一套高效指南+实用示例，助你轻松搞定审稿任务！
一份合格的审稿意见通常包含以下三部分：
◆ 总体评价：论文的整体质量如何？是否值得发表？
◆ 具体修改建议：论文存在哪些具体问题？哪些部分需要修改？
◆ 最终推荐：建议“接受（Accept）”“小修（Minor revision）”“大修（Major revision）”“修后重投（Revise & Resubmit）”还是“拒稿（Reject）”？
总的来说，作为审稿意见，比较通用的建议是：语言专业、评价客观、意见具体、建议可执行！
1 小修（Minor Revision）
小修表示论文整体不错，调整优化即可。适用于研究内容扎实、逻辑清晰、数据可信，但存在细节问题（语言、格式、图表、文献等）。
审稿意见示例：
▲ 正面评价 + 适度建议
“This is a well-written manuscript that only needs to undergo a few minor changes. First, …”
“这是一篇写得很好的论文，仅需要进行一些小幅修改。首先，……”
“The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.”
“该论文基于令人印象深刻的实证数据，并具有原创性贡献。仅需进行小幅修改即可发表。”
“I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and only have some minor requests for revision.”
“我非常愉快地审阅了这份手稿，并且只有一些小的修改要求。”
“The authors adequately addressed my feedback from the first round of peer review. I only have some minor comments for final improvements.”
“作者们充分回应了我在首轮同行评审中提出的反馈意见。对于最终的完善工作，我只有一些小的建议。”
▲ 具体可执行的修改建议
“The authors develop a unique theoretical framework, and I believe that they should highlight their originality much more.”
“作者构建了一个独特的理论框架，我认为他们应该更突出其原创性。”
“The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.”
“作者的研究非常有价值，但在引言中未能充分强调其相关性。”
“The authors draw on extensive empirical evidence. I believe that they can put forward their arguments much more confidently.”
“作者引用了大量实证数据，我认为他们可以更加自信地提出自己的论点。”
“To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.”
“为了提高论文的可读性，我建议将分析部分划分为几个子章节。”
“I had difficulties understanding the first paragraph on page 5, and suggest that the authors reformulate and simplify it.”
“我在理解第5页的第一段时遇到了困难，建议作者对其进行改写和简化。”
“Figure 3 is difficult to read and should be adjusted.”
“图 3 难以阅读，需要调整。”
“Table 1 and Table 2 can be combined to create a better overview.”
“表 1 和表 2 可以合并，以提供更清晰的概览。”
“The abstract is too long and should be shortened.”
“摘要过长，建议缩短。”
“The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.”
“该论文需要经过专业的语言润色后才能发表。”
“The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.”
“论文包含了详尽的文献综述，但在引言部分需要补充关键概念的定义。”
“Throughout the manuscript, there are several language mistakes. Therefore, I recommend a professional round of language editing before the paper is published.”
“论文中存在多处语言错误。因此，我建议在发表前进行专业的语言润色。”
“The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.”
“该论文在发表前应进行专业的语言润色。”
▲ 结论
“Overall, the paper is of high quality and merits publication after these minor revisions.”
“总体而言，该论文质量较高，经过这些小幅修改后值得发表。”
关键点：
1） 以鼓励为主，让作者更愿意接受建议。
2） 重点优化细节问题，保证修改方向明确。
2 大修（Major Revision）
大修表示论文有价值，但核心内容需修改。适用于论文主题有意义，但理论基础不足、实验设计不完善、数据支撑不充分、结论不够严谨。
示例审稿意见：
▲ 认可价值，但指出关键问题
“The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some major issues need to be addressed before it can be published.”
“该论文具有很大潜力，但在发表之前需要解决一些重大问题。”
“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.”
“本论文探讨了一个重要的前沿问题，并对该领域有一定贡献。然而，在发表之前需要进行较大修改。”
“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.”
“我很喜欢阅读这篇论文，并认为它具有很大的潜力。但与此同时，我也发现了一些需要作者关注的问题。”
“The manuscript sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. However, it also has several shortcomings. I strongly encourage the authors to address the following points.”
”该论文揭示了一个有趣的现象。然而，它也存在一些不足之处。我强烈建议作者关注以下几点。”
“The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear.”
“这篇论文的作者设定了一个颇具雄心的研究目标，并使用了一个有趣的数据集。然而，他们的核心论点尚不清晰。”
▲ 具体修改建议
“The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly.”
“论文的核心论点需要更加清晰地阐述。”
“The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on…”
“理论框架有一定的潜力，但尚不完整。我认为，作者不能在不考虑以下文献的情况下提出目前的观点：……”
“The literature review is promising, but disregards recent publications in the field of…”
“该文献综述具有一定的价值，但忽略了该领域的最新研究成果……”
“The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…”
“论文的实证数据在某些情况下不足以支撑作者的观点。例如，在第 X 节……”
“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.”
“我鼓励作者提供更深入的证据。例如，我希望看到更多的访谈引用和更透明的统计分析。”
“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.“
“作者使用了一个有趣的数据集。然而，我对实际结果的详细见解不足。我认为增加几个表格和图表可以改善作者的论证。”
“I believe that the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and includes a timely discussion. However, I struggled to understand section 3.1.”
“我认为这份手稿涉及一个相关的主题，并包含及时的讨论。然而，我很难理解第3.1节。”
“I think that the manuscript can be improved by removing section 4 and integrating it into section 5.”
“我认为可以通过删除第4节并将其整合到第5节中来改进这份手稿。”
“The discussion and conclusions are difficult to follow and need to be rewritten to highlight the key contributions of this manuscript.”
“讨论和结论难以理解，需要重写以突出这份手稿的关键贡献。”
“The line of argumentation should be improved by dividing the manuscript into clear sections with subheadings.”
“论证思路应通过将手稿分为带有副标题的清晰部分来改进。”
▲ 结论
“I recommend major revisions before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.”
“建议进行大幅修改后再考虑发表。”
关键点：
1）先认可研究价值，减少作者的抵触情绪。
2）具体问题具体分析，给出清晰的修改方向。
3）避免“一刀切”否定论文，强调可改进的地方。
3 修后重投（Revise & Resubmit）
修后重投表示论文方向可行，但改动过大，建议重新提交。适用于论文选题有意义，但逻辑混乱、核心研究不清晰、分析深度不够，需要大幅调整。
示例审稿意见：
▲ 鼓励作者修改，而不是直接拒稿
“I encourage the authors to revise their manuscript and to resubmit it to the journal.” “我鼓励作者对论文进行修订后重新提交至该期刊。”
“With the right changes, I believe that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to the field of …”
“如果进行适当的修改，我认为这篇论文可以对……领域做出有价值的贡献。”
“The paper addresses a valuable topic and raises interesting questions. However, the logic of the argument is difficult to follow.“
“这篇论文探讨了一个有价值的主题，并提出了有趣的问题。然而，论证的逻辑难以理解。”
“In its current form, this paper cannot be considered for publication. However, I see value in the research approach and encourage the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript.”
“以目前的形式，这篇论文不能被考虑发表。然而，我看到了研究方法的价值，并鼓励作者修改后重新提交他们的手稿。”
▲ 核心修改建议
“The manuscript tries to achieve too many things at the same time. The authors need to narrow down their research focus.”
“该论文试图同时涉及多个问题，建议作者缩小研究重点。”
“The manuscript needs to better emphasise the research relevance and its practical implications.”
“论文需要更好地突出研究的相关性及其实践意义。
“The authors raise many interesting points, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow their main argument. I recommend that the authors determine what their main argument is, and structure their manuscript accordingly.”
“作者提出了许多有趣的观点，但这使得读者难以理解他们的主要论点。我建议作者确定他们的主要论点，并相应地组织他们的手稿。”
“The literature review raises interesting theoretical debates. However, in its current form, it does not provide a good framework for the empirical analysis.”
“这篇文献综述提出了有趣的理论辩论。然而，以目前的形式，它没有为实证分析提供一个良好的框架。”
“A clearer theoretical stance will increase the quality of the paper.”
“更清晰的理论立场将提高论文的质量。”
“The manuscript draws on impressive data, as described in the methodology. However, the wealth of data does not come across in the analysis. My recommendation is to increase the number of interview quotes, figures and statistics in the empirical analysis.”
“手稿借鉴了令人印象深刻的数据，正如方法论中所描述的那样。然而，大量的数据并没有在分析中体现出来。我的建议是在实证分析中增加访谈引用、图表和统计数据的数量。”
“The authors draw several conclusions which are hard to connect to their empirical findings.“
“作者得出了一些难以与他们的实证发现联系起来的结论。”
The authors are advised to critically reflect on the generalizability of their research findings.”
“建议作者批判性地反思其研究发现的普遍性。”
“It is unclear what the authors consider their main contribution to the academic literature, and what they envisage in terms of recommendations for further research.”
“作者认为他们对学术文献的主要贡献是什么，以及他们在进一步研究的建议方面设想了什么，这些都不清楚。”
▲ 结论
“In its current form, the paper cannot be considered for publication. However, I see value in the research approach and encourage the authors to revise and resubmit.” “当前版本的论文尚不具备发表条件。但我认为研究方法具有一定价值，建议作者修改后重新提交。”
关键点：
1）说明论文的潜力，鼓励作者修改而不是直接放弃。
2）重点指出需要根本性调整的地方，而非局部优化。
3）让作者明白，当前论文与发表标准之间的差距。
4 拒稿（Reject）
拒稿表示论文存在严重问题，不建议发表。适用于论文内容错误较多、研究缺乏新意、数据质量存疑、理论框架不完整。
示例审稿意见：
▲ 客观指出论文的问题
“While the paper addresses an interesting issue, it is not publishable in its current form.”
“尽管论文探讨了一个有趣的问题，但目前版本不具备发表条件。”
“The paper lacks a convincing theoretical framework, which is necessary to be considered for publication.”
“论文缺乏令人信服的理论框架，而这是发表的必要条件。”
“Unfortunately, the language and sentence structures of this manuscript are at times incomprehensible. The paper needs rewriting and thorough language editing to allow for a proper peer review.”
“不幸的是，该论文的语言和句子结构在某些地方难以理解。需要重新撰写并进行彻底的语言润色，以便进行合适的同行评审。”
▲ 具体拒稿理由
“Unfortunately, the literature review is inadequate. It lacks..”
“遗憾的是，文献综述不足。它缺乏……”
“I do not believe that this journal is a good fit for this paper.”
“我认为这篇论文不适合本期刊。”
“In its current state, I do not recommend accepting this paper.”
“以目前的状态，我不建议接受这篇论文。”
“Unfortunately, the empirical data does not meet disciplinary standards.”
“遗憾的是，实证数据不符合学科标准。”
“While I applaud the authors’ efforts, the paper does not provide sufficient empirical evidence.”
“尽管我赞赏作者的努力，但论文没有提供足够的实证证据。”
“The empirical material is too underdeveloped to consider this paper for publication.”
“实证材料过于不成熟，无法考虑发表这篇论文。”
“The paper has too many structural issues, which makes it hard to follow the argument.”
“论文存在太多的结构问题，这使得论证难以理解。”
“There is a strong mismatch between the literature review and the empirical analysis.”
“文献综述和实证分析之间存在严重的不匹配。”
“The main contribution of this paper is unclear.”
“这篇论文的主要贡献不明确。”
“It is unclear what the paper contributes to the existing academic literature.”
“这篇论文对现有学术文献的贡献是什么，这一点不清楚。”
“The originality of this paper needs to be worked out before it can be considered for publication.”
“这篇论文的原创性需要在考虑发表之前进行完善。”
▲ 结论
“Given the above concerns, I do not recommend accepting this paper.”
“基于上述问题，我不建议接受此论文。”
关键点：
1）拒稿时要客观、专业，避免过于情绪化的评价。
2）给出具体原因，让作者知道为什么被拒，而不是简单说“这篇文章不行”。
3）有建设性，如果可能的话，指出作者未来可以改进的方向。
5 写审稿意见时的常见问题
◆ “太模糊”：别只说“the paper needs improvement”，要具体指出哪些地方需要改。
◆ “太狠”：避免使用带有攻击性的措辞，比如“this article is completely worthless”。
◆ “没有建设性”：拒稿也要有理由，别简单粗暴地说“does not meet publication standards”。
总结：好审稿意见的黄金法则
客观公正，避免主观偏见
具体明确，指出问题所在
建设性强，给出改进方向
表达礼貌，尊重作者的努力
好啦，祝你投稿时遇到的都是温暖审稿人；当你审稿时，也能给作者清晰专业的意见。
扫描下方二维码，关注【埃米编辑SCI论文润色】微信公众号，获取更多SCI论文写作资料，回复“礼包”，免费领取100+写作投稿资料包和投稿问题30问。
