下载文档原格式
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重视程度）：In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of English needs improving.Reviewer 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments 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: XXXAffiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。
英语作文评语简短老师评语批评English Answer：Strengths:Well-organized and coherent structure.Clear and concise language.Effective use of examples and evidence to support claims.Demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic.Areas for Improvement:Proofreading errors (e.g., grammar, punctuation)。
Lack of sources to support some claims.Some sections could be more specific and detailed to provide a more in-depth analysis.Overall Impression:Overall, this is a well-written essay that demonstrates the student's grasp of the topic and writing skills. However, attention to proofreading and incorporating proper citations would enhance the quality of the work.Chinese Answer：优点：结构清晰、连贯。
语言清晰简洁。
有效利用例子和证据支持观点。
表现出对该主题的深刻理解。
改进领域：校对错误（例如语法、标点符号）。
缺乏来源来支持某些说法。
一些部分可以更具体、更详细，以提供更深入的分析。
总的印象：总的来说，这是一篇写得很好的文章，展示了学生对该主题的理解和写作技巧。
然而，注意校对和纳入适当的引文将增强作品的质量。
点评作文的英文评语英文：When it comes to commenting on an essay, it's important to provide constructive feedback that will help the writer improve. Here are some phrases that can be used:1. "I appreciate the effort you put into this essay, but I feel that it could benefit from more clarity and organization."2. "Your use of language is impressive, but there are some grammatical errors that need to be addressed."3. "I like how you incorporated personal anecdotes into your essay, but I think it would be stronger if you provided more evidence to support your arguments."4. "Your introduction is engaging and sets up the rest of the essay nicely."5. "Overall, I think you have a good grasp of the topic, but there are areas where you could expand on your ideasand provide more detail."中文：在点评一篇文章时，提供有益的反馈对于帮助作者提高非常重要。
英文审稿意见汇总1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重视程度）：◆In addition, the list of references is not in our s tyle. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.◆The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There areproblems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.◆The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.◆Please ha ve someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?◆the quality of English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting.◆There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - AppliedBiomaterials.◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not welljustified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your effort compares with state-of-the-art?The experiment is the major problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimental result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this result? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement?the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words.it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language.The authors did a good job in motivating the problem studied in theintroduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors propose.Apparently，Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humble opinion 如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .....according to review comments.如果是接受，你可以用We are very pleased to inform you that your paper "xxxxx" has been accepted by [journal name]. Please prepare your paper by journal template...............At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece of work, reporting on ×××. Fine, good quality, but all thishas been done and published, and nearly become a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, there is insufficient novelty or significance to meet publication criteria. Also, I did not see any expermental evidence how the ** is related with **, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。
最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
英文论文审稿意见汇总之有琴礁磷创作1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
SCI审稿评语通常是对稿件的质量、创新性、科学性等方面进行评价。
以下是一些常见的审稿评语及解释：1. “This is a well-written manuscript with important findings that advance the field of [研究领域].”这句话表示稿件写得很好，研究结果对研究领域有重要贡献。
2. “The study is methodologically sound and the data presented are supportive of theconclusions.”这句话表示研究方法合理，数据支持结论。
3. “The results are interesting and warrant further exploration.”这句话表示研究结果有趣，值得进一步探讨。
4. “The conclusions are supported by the data and the study adds to the body of knowledgein the field.”这句话表示结论有数据支持，研究增加了该领域的知识储备。
5. “However, I feel that the results presented do not fully support the conclusions.”这句话表示研究结果不能完全支持结论。
6. “Additional experiments are needed to strengthen the conclusions.”这句话表示需要更多的实验来强化结论。
7. “The language needs further editing to improve readability.”这句话表示需要进一步编辑语言，以提高可读性。
8. “The figures and tables are clear and easy to understand.”这句话表示图和表格清晰易懂。
英语作文批改评语英语作文批改评语1一、宏观性评价1.整体印象类评语Super！Excellent！Perfect！Wonderful！Fantastic！Marvelous！采纳整体印象类评语对于起始阶段同学有较好激励作用，但若千篇一律使用此类评语，就会使同学无法正确熟悉自己写作水平，最终导致老师评语失去应有作用。
2.规范导知类评语Beautiful.Clear. Wonderful.Good hand-writing.You’re careful of using pronunciation.Glad to see your improvement in handwriting.I’m expecting clearer/more beautiful hand-writing from you next time. You’d better pay more attenti on to word order. Better be more careful of your spelling.It’s important to compose a graft beforehand.3.情感调控类评语I appreciate your handwriting.You have a good knowledge of English proverbs.You are quite aware of making meaningful sentences.You are richer than others in collecting and using typical sentences and idioms.I’m expecting greater progress from you in writing .Come on.If you need my help,never hesitate to come to me.警句：Hard work leads to success.Not to advance is to go back.No one is without faults.Keeping is harder than winning.Keep it up.二、微观写作技能方面评语1.专项点拨类评语It’s proper to use the proverb in Para.2 quite clever. You are good at using attributive clauses in your writing.The “struck” sentence is perfectly used.You’d better use “third person” in the first para.It’s good to use the past tense in your writing.2.佳句观赏类评语老师可以在句尾统一标注赞美性符号〔如E—Excellent〕或标识不同星级等。
评语大全之英文审稿评语英文审稿评语【篇一：如何写审稿意见】求如何写论文审稿意见？一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。
对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。
（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。
文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。
（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。
根据以上三点，你可以适当发挥。
其他回答紫胶啊啊2009-10-20 09:53:16专家如何审阅稿件，即如何正确评价一篇论文，专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。
我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。
编辑如何选择审稿专家对于每一份专业的科技期刊（或称学术期刊），其编辑部都会设立一个庞大的编辑委员会，编委会主任一般都由在本行业（或专业）有一定知名度的专家、学者担任，编委会成员由一大批本行业（或专业）的知各专家、教授或学者担任，在编委中，一般都要考虑到各大专院校相关专业、相关科研院所及地域间的名额平衡问题，期刊主办单位和北京地区的名额相应会多一些，而一些省市的名额可能只有一个，有些经济和文化相对落后的省区可能还没有编委。
这种情况造成了一些编委天生地就只能是挂名或名誉的。
有时一些编委几年都审不了一篇稿件，这种情况是十分正常的。
为什么呢？因为在编委会下，编辑部还会有一个审稿专家的名单，这个审稿专家名单是不公开的，这个审稿名单里的专家一般都是处于年富力强、正在一线从事科研工作的专家学者。
同时，有时编辑部还要根据具体情况聘请部分两院院士作为学术顾问，对一些对行业有重大影响的稿件进行必要的审查。
从而形成了编委不审稿、审稿专家不是编委的状况。
编辑选择审稿专家的原则，首先，是专家的经历和学历，特别是专家的经历是最重要的。
每年编辑部都要发表格给专家，让专家填写工作经历，即专家系统数据库的刷新，通过“刷新”编辑会得到专家最新的研究动向和科学前沿，在编辑请专家审阅某一篇论文时，编辑就会“心中有数”从而不会出现选择审稿专家时的“偏差”。
当然高学历的专家也是编辑首选的目标。
其次，是专家对审稿工作的认真负责态度。
有些专家喜欢做一些文字工作，而有些专家学者并不善于从事审稿工作。
有些专家对待审稿工作競競业业，从标题到标点，从字词到结构，从正文到参考文献等通篇都进行了修正，并做出全面而客观的评价意见，最后得出了采用与否的建议，这样的审稿专家从编辑的角度来说，是十分喜欢的。
而一些专家的审稿意见则是“不用”或“建议录用”几个字了事，对于不用的稿件，无论是编辑还是审稿专家，都应该明明白白地告诉作者不用的理由，而简单的“不用”是无论如何也不能让作者理解的！如果审稿专家的长期这么简单的处理稿件，必将导致编辑对其的“淡化”。
同时对于由于繁忙而经常拖着不及时审阅的论文，编辑也会在以后的审稿安排中，少给这些“比较忙”的专家们审稿，有时可能就会在无声无息中取消了这些专家的审稿资格。
我接触过几位审稿专家，对论文的审稿意见竟多达三页纸（有时比作者的论文还长），还有一位教授不光给我写了二张纸的审稿意见，还将国外一些最新的文献复印给我，让我转告给论文的作者。
这种负责任的审稿专家是编辑工作的“开路先锋”，有了这样的审稿意见，编辑的工作何愁做不好呢？第三，是专家的审稿水平。
当然，审稿专家的学历、经历不同，对一篇论文的审查结论也会有所不同。
而专家审稿所处的角度不同，对稿件的评价高度也就不尽相同。
这种差异有时让编辑很难给一篇论文下结论。
在我所接触的审稿专家中，有时批给一位专家的四五篇论文，专家没有一篇通过的，还有一些专家，只要到他那里的稿件，都认为是“好文章”而篇篇通过，这就会让编辑们“若有所思”的。
专家如何审稿作为某一行业的专家学者，对其所处专业的学术动态和技术水平应有一个全面地了解，专家审稿主要是对论文内容的审查，如论文的观点是否正确，所采用的原理、公式、推导过程以及结论的正确与否，试验数据是否与国外文献上数据有出入，参考文献是否是最新的等等。
从某种程度上说，专家审稿是对论文的学术水平、技术水平，以及论文的创新性、先进性等进行正确地评价。
记得在1988年时，有一篇关于沙棘方面的论文，专家审稿后认为国内沙棘的含油量有些偏高，但专家在征求作者意见后还是同意刊登了，但两年后该作者给编辑部发来了致谦信，说是当时测定沙棘含油量用的试剂过期了，因而试验数据有误。
对于这种失误，作者恐怕要担当全部的责任了。
专家审稿时，必须对学术论文所反映的内容进行全面而细致地审查，如论点、实验过程、结果与讨论、结论等应进行细致的审查，对不同的学术观点和论点，专家应静下心来，进行认真地、理性地思考，给论文以正确而恰如其分地评价，切不可“臆测”、“臆想”和“臆断”地评价论文的学术价值。
如对于食用油的“分子重整”技术和1：1：1营养问题，要看其本质，而不能“谈虎色变”，对所有“分子重整”技术和1：1：1都进行批驳不是一种科学的态度。
科学是一个动态的，不是一成不变的，随着时间的推移和科学研究的进展，一切新发现和新发明都会成为可能。
对于一些科学前沿上的问题，如果专家不是十分地了解，可以退给编辑另请他人进行审稿，没有必要“硬着头皮”审下去。
在我接触的许多审稿专家中，几乎都有过“我对此论文的研究领域不甚了解，敬请其他专家审稿”的意见，我认为这是很正常的，也是审稿专家的“实事求是”的工作作风和正常的一种学术风气。
对待参考文献的问题，一些专家是很认真的。
的确，参考文献越来越受到审稿专家的重视了，有些专家在给我的信中说，一些论文的参考文献太老了，还有一些论文的参考文献只有比较“陈旧”的几本书，没有最新的期刊文献，特别是一些综述性稿件，参考文献列了50-100条不等，但真正有用的参考文献并不多，还有一些作者为了提高自己论文的引用率，不管文章内容与文献有没有关系，都大量引用自己的文献，因而一些专家在审稿时都一一“画出来”。
一些比较经典的公式的推导和换算，专家则更注重参考文献中一些经典名著的出版时间、版别（即第几版），从而更能说明一些科学研究的进展情况。
对于网络参考文献一些专家更是亲自点击，从而得到更确切的求证。
当然，专家审稿有时也会遭遇“两难”的境地，如同学的论文和学生的论文，以及研究同行的论文等，只要坚持一个审稿和评价标准，在行业“德高望重”的专家会处理好这一难题的！编辑会采纳专家的审稿意见？谈到这个问题，相信许多博友都十分关注。
那么编辑是否会全部采纳专家的审稿意见昵，我明确地告诉大家：不可能！一本科技期刊上要刊出什么样的稿件，专家和编辑的观点往往是不同的，这是因为各自所处的位置的差异造成的。
专家希望多刊出一些自己研究领域的学术论文，而编辑则更注重期刊的众多读者群对阅读的不同需求。
这就是为什么有些论文专家审稿都通过了，而且专家对该论文的评价很高，而编辑部却没有及时给予刊出的原因，有时这样的论文还被拖了很长时间才得以刊出。
与此相反的是，一些专家并不看好、评价免强的论文，编辑却在第一时间给予刊出。
这种现象其实是很正常的。
因为，有时编辑考虑的是相关专题论文的搭配比例，正所谓“阳春白雪”与“下里巴人”的充分结合。
现在，由于科普期刊的少之又少，因而在一些技术类期刊上也就刊出一些“人尽皆知”的科普文章。
试想想，一篇充满普及性内容的文章，有何“学术价值”而“堂而皇之”地刊登在科技期刊上呢？这其实并不是期刊“没稿子登了”，而是编辑为了迎合一部分读者的需求而故意为之的。
当然，一些比较好的科普论文审稿专家也是比较喜欢的，而且在现今，能写出“宏图巨著”的学术论文大师，并不一定能写出“妙趣横生”的科普文章来！审稿方法论是开启审稿之门的金钥匙方法就是技巧。
编辑要想提高审稿能力，编辑学知识的系统学习不可或缺，其中重点应加强审稿方法论的学习。
1.政治性审查。
政治上主要审8个方面问题：国家领土和主权问题；民族尊严问题；党的方针、政策问题；涉外问题；宗教问题；历史问题；保密问题；其他政治问题。
2.创新性审查。
创新主要是指论文对人类知识、技术或观念等的新贡献。
分析方法和途径大致如下：分析论文来源：基金课题的审批严，经费支持好，其论文可能较有创新性。
分析作者信息：公认的高水平作者的新作质量可能好，因为研究有继承性，论文质量与作者素质呈正相关。
分析参考文献：参考文献权威、时间新、数量较多，期刊论文多而书籍少，原始文献多而转引或译文少，摘引篇幅适当、标引规范的论文质量可能较高。
分析正文：论题鲜明、新颖，实验过程和数据完整，论据典型充分，论证严密，结论明确的论文一般较具创新性。
查新：检索网络文献数据库、二次文摘或文题文献、主要专业期刊等，查阅同类主题已有哪些研究、是否重复、有无抄袭等。
通过以上一系列审稿活动最终评定论文创新等级：原创、再创、补创、无创新（重复），或根本就是杜撰、抄袭的。
应注意的是，以上列举的方法有些只具有统计学上的指导意义，要具体论文具体分析，切不可生搬硬套和简单化、绝对化。
3.科学性审查。
即审查论文是否符合科学原理。
主要包括真实性、客观性、准确性、严密性、再现性等5个方面：事实、数据、插图等论据要真实；观察、记录、评论等要客观；概念、感觉判断、文献引用等要准确；研究方法要合理、可靠，推理、论证、逻辑判断、论文结构层次等要严密，既简洁，又完整、充分；实验过程、结果、结论等能被他人再现和印证。
4.实用性审查。
学术性强的论文一般直接实用价值小而间接实用价值大，扩散领域广，作用时间长；而与实践联系紧密的论文则相反。
对于教学、科研类论文，主要审查其对教学、科研工作的指导意义、参考价值和可能产生的社会效益；对于工程技术、实验类论文，主要审查其实际应用的可行性、对生产实践的指导作用和可能产生的直接或间接的经济效益。
提起审稿，许多人认为所谓的审稿就是受期刊编辑的委托，对一篇论文作出正确的评价。
这一点大凡大家都知道，为什么呢？许多博友可能都不同程度地参与过审稿工作而已。
那么，期刊编辑如何选择审稿专家，专家如何审阅稿件，即如何正确评价一篇论文，专家的审稿意见是否会被编辑所采纳。
我想这是广大博友十分关心的一个话题。
编辑如何选择审稿专家对于每一份专业的科技期刊（或称学术期刊），其编辑部都会设立一个庞大的编辑委员会，编委会主任一般都由在本行业（或专业）有一定知名度的专家、学者担任，编委会成员由一大批本行业（或专业）的知各专家、教授或学者担任，在编委中，一般都要考虑到各大专院校相关专业、相关科研院所及地域间的名额平衡问题，期刊主办单位和北京地区的名额相应会多一些，而一些省市的名额可能只有一个，有些经济和文化相对落后的省区可能还没有编委。
这种情况造成了一些编委天生地就只能是挂名或名誉的。
有时一些编委几年都审不了一篇稿件，这种情况是十分正常的。
