REVIEW怎么做

revision翻译术语Revision翻译术语，指的是对文本、文件、作品等进行修改和修订的过程。

下面是一些与revision相关的术语及其用法和中英文对照例句：1. Proofreading（校对）：检查文本中的拼写、语法、标点符号等错误，并进行修正。

- The proofreading stage is essential to ensure the accuracy of the final document.（校对阶段对于确保最终文档的准确性至关重要。

）2. Editing（编辑）：对文本进行修改，以提高其准确性、流畅性和可读性。

- The editor suggested several revisions to improve the clarity of the article.（编辑提出了几处修改意见，以提高文章的清晰度。

）3. Rewriting（重写）：对文本进行全面修改，以改变其结构、语言和风格。

- The author decided to rewrite the entire chapter to make it more engaging for the readers.（作者决定重写整个章节，使其更具吸引力，以吸引读者。

）4. Peer review（同行评审）：由专家或同行对文本进行审查和评估，以确保其质量和准确性。

- The research paper went through a rigorous peer review process before being published.（这篇研究论文在发表之前经过了严格的同行评审过程。

）5. Track changes（显示修改）：在文档中显示修改和修订，以便作者和编辑进行查看和审阅。

- The track changes feature in Microsoft Word allows multiple users to collaborate on a document and see all the revisions made.（Microsoft Word的“显示修订”功能允许多个用户共同编辑一个文档，并查看所有的修改。

review的类型Review的类型在当今社会，无论是购物、餐饮还是娱乐，人们都越来越依赖于在线评论来做出决策。

随着互联网的发展，评论的类型和形式也变得多样化。

本文将深入探讨评论的几种主要类型，以及它们各自的特点和作用。

1.文字评论文字评论是最常见的一种评论形式。

用户通过撰写文字来表达对产品或服务的看法、感受和建议。

这种形式的评论具有很高的灵活性，用户可以根据自己的需求自由地表达观点。

同时，文字评论也便于其他用户阅读和理解，有助于提高评论的传播效果。

2.图片评论图片评论是一种直观、生动的评论形式。

用户可以通过上传图片来展示产品或服务的外观、使用场景等。

相比文字评论，图片评论更能吸引用户的注意力，同时也更易于理解和记忆。

然而，图片评论需要用户具备一定的摄影技巧和设备，这在一定程度上限制了它的普及程度。

3.视频评论视频评论是一种更为生动、立体的评论形式。

用户可以通过录制视频来展示产品或服务的全方位特点，同时还可以配以语音解说，使评论更加丰富和具体。

视频评论具有很高的真实感和可信度，能够有效地激发其他用户的购买欲望。

然而，视频评论需要用户具备一定的录制设备和编辑技能，这使得它的制作成本相对较高。

4.综合评价综合评价是一种更为全面、客观的评论形式。

它通常由专业机构或第三方平台进行发布，通过收集、整理和分析各种类型的评论数据，为用户提供更为详细、准确的评价结果。

综合评价具有很高的权威性和可信度，能够有效地帮助用户做出决策。

然而，综合评价需要耗费大量的人力、物力和时间进行数据收集、整理和分析工作，因此成本相对较高。

综上所述，不同类型的评论各具特点和使用场景。

文字评论适合表达个人观点和情感；图片评论适合展示产品的外观和使用场景；视频评论则能够提供更加真实、生动的体验；而综合评价则可以帮助用户获取全面、客观的评价结果。

在实际应用中，用户可以根据自身需求选择合适的评论类型，以便更好地了解产品或服务的真实情况，做出更为明智的决策。

review的标准三个知道01结果维度结果维度是对整个事件的完整复盘。

管理者首先确保团队成员对目标达成共识，然后再对过程进行层层分析，最后再对核心关键点指标进行设置。

经过这个复盘过程，基本上就能把整个事情的全貌看得清清楚楚，哪里做得好、哪里有问题一目了然。

在结果维度中，最重要的是对过程数据抽丝剥茧地深度思考和相互沟通。

阿里在进行Review的过程中，都会要求团队成员提供这个阶段的数据、业绩和成长点，在这个过程中我们会发现有些员工提供的数据是存在问题的。

例如，团队本月的目标是完成100万的业绩，但最后目标却只完成了70万，背后的原因是什么？是团队状态不好？还是方法有问题？当然，我们不仅要发现问题，更要找到解决方法。

在阿里，这个过程也叫“不断给药的过程”。

Review中的另一个重点就是对核心关键点指标进行设置。

在一个时间段内，我们只需要抓少数的核心关键点指标，甚至只看一个数据表现。

比如，在企业休养生息期，我们只抓业务拜访量；在企业高歌猛进期，我们只抓业绩达成率；在企业业务转型期，我们只抓新客户数量。

管理者应该和员工对一段时期内的核心关键点指标达成共识，共同设置并对其形成有利的监督机制，“死抓”提升关键点指标的要素，并和企业的大战略保持一致性。

02策略维度策略维度的Review是系统地总结目标达成过程中的成功经验和失败教训。

管理者要深入了解团队成员达成目标所运用的方式方法。

如果有好的结果又有好的过程，管理者可以马上在同级管理者中分享经验；如果有好的结果但是没有好的过程，管理者一定要警醒和反思，因为好运气不可能永远伴随；如果有好的过程却没有好的结果，管理者务必要重新审视整个过程，因为其中一定存在着某些问题，要么报喜未报忧，要么执行过于粗枝大叶；如果既没有好的过程也没有好的结果，管理者就要先了解团队的状态，然后共同探寻改进方案，必要时还需要签署绩效改进书。

如果持续两个季度依然如此，就要调整员工的岗位或是做出辞退的决定了。

如何有效的做Code Review什么是Code Review？Code Review代码评审是指在软件开发过程中，通过对源代码进行系统性检查的过程。

通常的目的是查找各种缺陷，包括代码缺陷、功能实现问题、编码合理性、性能优化等；保证软件总体质量和提高开发者自身水平。

Code Review是轻量级代码评审，相对于正式代码评审，轻量级代码评审所需要的各种成本要明显低得多，如果流程正确，它可以起到更加积极的效果。

正因如此，轻量级代码评审经常性地被引入到软件开发过程中。

为什么Code Review？1.提高代码质量。

2.及早发现潜在缺陷，降低修改/弥补缺陷的成本。

3.促进团队内部知识共享，提高团队整体水平。

4.评审过程对于评审人员来说，也是一种思路重构的过程。

帮助更多的人理解系统。

5.是一个传递知识的手段，可以让其它并不熟悉代码的人知道作者的意图和想法，从而可以在以后轻松维护代码。

6.鼓励程序员们相互学习对方的长处和优点。

7.可以被用来确认自己的设计和实现是一个清楚和简单的。

如何做Code Review？Code Review检查什么？1.结构问题代码最大的问题，不是一两个地方有技术缺陷，也不是业务逻辑错误，而是整个软件设计的不好。

前两者更容易通过测试或使用来发现和更正，但后者就不同了。

如果回想一下自己见过的各种烂摊子，是不是有同感？具体哪里有问题怎么改说不上来，就是整个软件看上去混乱无章，无从下手。

具体结构问题包括：重复拷贝代码（不封装函数，不用Template/泛型……），函数过长（超过一屏幕就叫过长），错误封装（不恰当的public/不用Interface/不内聚/强耦合/在类中封装了无关方法……），内容错误（多个无关类置于一个文件/不恰当的命名……）等等。

改正结构问题，是从编写可靠软件向编写精美软件迈进的重要方法。

2.业务逻辑问题就是软件是否与需求的要求符合的问题。

审核者和被审核者经常对业务需求的理解有差异，借此机会同步一下，必要时引入PO（产品经理/产品负责人）。

阿里Review复盘_深度揭秘没有好的过程，不会促成好的结果。

越来越多的企业意识到“追过程”的重要性，而Review正在成为企业追过程的通用手段。

但在实际操作中，很多CEO反映，Review做着做着就沦为一种形式，既看不见效果又费时费力。

如何避免review流于形式？怎样做高质量的review？今天和你分享阿里“Review”秘籍，助力你了解阿里绩效管理的核心秘密。

什么是Review？说得简单通俗一点就是总结。

你每天、每个月、每个季度、每年都有需要总结的时候。

我们起了给这个总结起一个更好听的名字，叫做时光倒流。

假设我们站在月初回到上个月的月初的时候，如果说能够让我们重新来一遍，我们将如何来做这件事情？通常是每个月月初或者是季度开始的时候去Review之前工作的一个状态。

在Review开始之前，我们得要先想清楚整个环节的流程。

第一，目标的设定。

我们要明白我们到底在Review什么？第二，绩效的拆解。

目标设定完是做目标的拆解，拆解完了是绩效的设定，你要设置绩效对应的KPI。

第三，进行Review。

围绕KPI我们才能进行总结。

第四，绩效考核。

有了总结以后，到绩效考核季度我们要做考核。

第五，提升改进。

在考核打完分数后，更重要的是说我们有没有双方共同达成共识的，确定下个阶段需要提升改进的内容。

01Review的周期那么Review应该保证一个什么样的周期呢？有的管理者觉得每个季度做一次Review就足够了，事实上每天、每周、每月、每个季度，我们都需要做Review。

这样才能够保证你在专注业务的过程当中不跑偏，很多的人之所以跑偏是因为每天的To do List（待办清单，以下简称TDL）他没做。

管理层在做每天的TDL 时，需要关注到员工在做的事情，帮他一起总结。

第一，你要看员工每天和每周的TDL，他有没有忽略掉这个月的目标？有没有偏离这个目标？第二，Review的时候就是很重要的点是他有没有符合阶段性的目标？有没有达成目标的节奏？第三，每天有每天的目标，每周有每周的目标，可是我每天要做一些什么样的事情，为我明天或者是这一周的目标打好基础呢？我们每天每周的过程指标完成了没？如果说我们每天每周的过程指标没有完成，其实到了每个月我们是完不成我们个人的目标。

review名词形式摘要：1.review 的含义和词性2.review 的用法和搭配3.review 的例句正文：“Review”是一个英语单词，既可以作动词，也可以作名词。

作为动词时，它的意思是“复习”或“回顾”，通常用于描述对已学过的知识或已做过的事情进行重新学习和检查。

例如，我们可以说“I need to review my notes before the exam”（我需要在考试前复习我的笔记）。

作为名词时，它的意思是“评论”或“回顾”，通常用于描述对电影、书籍、演出等进行评价。

例如，我们可以说“I read a review of the new movie and it sounds great”（我读了一篇新电影的评论，听起来很不错）。

“Review”还有一些常用的搭配，比如“book review”（书评），“movie review”（影评），“play review”（剧评）等。

此外，我们还可以用“review”来表示“复查”或“审查”，例如“The boss asked me to review the report again”（老板让我再次复查报告）。

以下是一些关于“review”的例句：- I need to review my notes before the exam.（我需要在考试前复习我的笔记。

）- He gave a great review of the new book.（他对新书进行了很好的评价。

）- The teacher asked us to review our homework before handing it in.（老师让我们在交作业前复习一下。

）- The boss asked me to review the report again.（老板让我再次复查报告。

如何有效地进⾏代码Review？研发都知道代码 Review 的重要性，在腾讯代码 Review 也越来越受⼤家重视，作为腾讯专有云平台研发的⼀员，我参与了⼤量的代码 Review，明显地感受到有效的代码 Review 不但能提⾼代码的质量，更能促进团队沟通协作，建⽴更⾼的⼯程质量标准，⽆论对个⼈还是团队都有着重要的价值。

本⽂就为什么要做代码 Review 以及如何有效地做代码 Review 分享⼀下个⼈的看法。

为什么要做代码 Review为什么要代码 Review，相信每个⼈⼼中都有⽐较⼀致的答案，Google 搜索⼀下也能找到⼀⼤堆的⽂章。

这⾥简单总结⼏点：1）提⾼代码质量这是代码 Review 的初衷，也是代码 Review 最直接的价值。

Reviewers 根据各⾃的经验，思考⽅式，看问题的⾓度给代码提出各种可能的改进意见，从⽽形成更好的代码以及产品质量。

我们知道产品问题越晚提出解决它的代价就越⼤，参与进去的⼈、要⾛的流程都会越来越多。

代码 Review 可以说是早期解决问题最有效的途径之⼀了，在代码 Review 中解决掉哪怕⼀个⼩问题都能避免后续⼀堆的⿇烦事。

2）形成团队统⼀的⾼质量标准有效的代码 Review 最终会在团队范围内建⽴起统⼀的质量标准，并且会随着团队成员的互相学习和促进形成更⾼的标准。

参与者会在代码Review 的过程中基于具体问题从不同⾓度提出改进意见，并最终做出当前最佳的选择并形成共识。

随着代码 Review 的有效进⾏，团队成员会有意识地关注代码质量，从⽽形成越来越⾼的事实上的质量标准。

3）个⼈快速成长通过有效的代码 Review，Author 和 Reviewer 都将获得成长，在 Review 过程中参与⼈就具体的问题展开深⼊的讨论，⽆论是怎么写出整洁的代码、怎么更好地更全⾯地思考问题、怎么最佳地解决问题，参与⼈都可以互相取长补短，互相提⾼。

通过具体代码实现进⾏的讨论往往是最深⼊和有效的，代码 Review 是开发者提⾼代码能⼒最重要的途径之⼀。

How to write a peer review Matt Ayres, Dec 2006 (Jan 2009) The primary literature, which is arguably the backbone of scientific knowledge, is defined by the peer review process. Many of us contribute as much to science by serving as reviewers and editors as by publishing our own papers. However, few of us have received explicit training in how to efficiently write effective reviews. The scientific community would probably benefit from more structured consideration of the theory and practice of reviewing papers. This is an effort to make progress. I encourage comments, critiques, and additions. I encourage anyone to borrow and build on what is here, and to press their colleagues and mentors to cultivate the development of our skills as reviewers.A paper review should be a clear, efficient persuasive argument directed at (1) the editor, who will be making a decision on the paper, and (2) the authors. Start the review with a brief paragraph that clearly indicates your judgement regarding the fate of the manuscript (typically reject, major revisions and possibly accept, or minor revisions followed by publication). If you recommend rejection, mention another journal where it might be appropriate and/or indicate what would be needed to make it publishable (e.g., different analyses, two more years of data, a proper experiment, etc.). Follow the summary paragraph with an elaboration of each general criticism (typically 2-5 points in my reviews). Make these first two sections easy for the editor to understand, evaluate, and briefly paraphrase. Follow this with detailed comments that are more minor and which typically reference particular lines or paragraphs. I often label these three sections as: “Overview”, “General comments”, and “Detailed comments”.Things to consider in developing your opinionIf what the authors say is true, is it interesting and appropriate for the journal?C Are the conclusions novel or confirmatory?C Are the conclusions of interest to a broad audience or mainly to specialists?C Did the study involve novel questions, hypotheses, techniques, orinterpretations? Could it be said that “This is the first study to ...”?C Is the work such that the investigators were uniquely qualified to conduct it?C Is the work such that it is unlikely to be repeated or substantially extendedanytime soon?st st To evaluate these points, study the 1 and last sentences of the abstract, the 1para of the intro and topic sentences in the discussion. You may wish to read the goals for the journal (e.g., /esapubs/journals/applications.htm for Ecological Applications and/aims.asp?ref=0030-1299&site=1 for Oikos), check the impact factor for the journal, and even browse some recent titles and abstracts .If the stated conclusions are not sufficiently general and interesting for the journal, then your review need not go further. If it might be a match for the journal, continue. Is the research question clear and well justified?Is the technical approach logical and rigorous?C How strong is the inference for the important conclusions? (e.g., correlations vsexperiments; were there tests of theoretical predictions that would be improbable if the hypothesis were not true; were the most important conclusions supportedby more than one line of evidence?)C Given the research question, did the investigators employ the strongestimaginable technical approach?If the question is not compelling or the technical approach is not rigorous, yourreview need not go further.Are the results clear and statistically rigorous?If there are equivocal results, could the authors realistically do more to nail it before the work is published?Does the discussion flow logically from the introduction? Is there a clear and relevant topic sentence for each paragraph?How is the clarity, precision, and efficiency of the prose?Is the ms too long? If so, where? Should the ms address fewer topics or devote fewer words per topic?What has been missed? (e.g., literature, analogous systems, connections to other subdisciplines, alternative interpretations for the data.). Good reviewers evaluate what is in the manuscript. Excellent reviewers also evaluate what is not in the manuscript.If I have come this far, and still like the paper, I will probably recommend publication. At that point, I give the abstract another very careful reading to make sure that everysentence is justified by the research. I also look again at the title, the figures and tables, each topic sentence in the discussion, keywords, and references.How much time to spend on a review? Enough to meet your responsibilities and no more, unless you altruistically choose to try to help the authors. If your recommendation is going to be reject, there is no need to write a long and detailed review. I may do more than I need to if I see that the author is a junior scientist, is not a native speaker of English, or is from a country or institution that is under-represented in the literature. I may also do more than I need to if I think the paper has great potential but is not quite there yet or if it seems like the data really should be published but the ms has to be fixed first. I find it efficient to read the ms once, rather quickly, and then reflect for a few days on the higher level questions (whether the conclusions are important if true, etc.). My reviews tend to be shorter for top tier journals. Do a good job with your reviews but do not spend too much time. I try to do reviews with 3 to 4 hours of work (but usually with four separate bouts of work - the first to read it, the second to study it again and outline my response, the third to actually write the review, and the fourth to read it again for tone and content before submitting it.)I spend the most time on papers that I recommend publishing (to convince myself that I am not admitting junk science) and when I am trying to be helpful to authors.Conflicts of interest and confidentiality. See journal instructions for reviewers (e.g., /esapubs/reviewers.htm). Every journal with which I have worked has a strict requirement for confidentiality. Conflicts of interest (COI) for reviewing papers are not usually very explicit and the norms seem to be less stringent than, for example, reviewing proposals for the National Science Foundation (see Wiley-Blackwell’s Publication Ethics). As an editor, I try to avoid asking for reviews from people who are at the same institution, are identified in the acknowledgements, have co-authored papers with the authors, or had a student or mentor relationship with one or more authors. Editors cannot always tell if there is a COI, so the potential reviewer has a responsibility to decline if there is a conflict of interest. However, knowing an author (and liking or disliking them) cannot be grounds for declining a review because the world is small and qualified reviewers will frequently know the authors. My view is that being a sometime competitor or cooperator with one or more of the authors also cannot be an automatic conflict of interest for the same reason (but it provides reason for careful consideration). I generally decline to review papers that were submitted by colleagues with whom I am a co-PI on proposals because their publication success might influence my future grant success, but I commonly review papers submitted by people I know, and I have reviewed papers that I have previously discussed with the authors. If you might be in conflict, explain the situation to the editor (e.g., under “Confidential remarks to the Editor”, which will not go to the authors). The topic of conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors probably deserves more discussion within the scientific community. For example, I invite discussion motivated by this paragraph.When to accept or decline requests to review? Decline any reviews for which you would not be qualified, but do not underestimate your qualifications – there will usually be parts of any good manuscript where your expertise is limited. Decline any reviews that you cannot complete within the approximate time frame that the journal expects. You have a responsibility to write as many reviews as reviews that you receive (e.g., review 2-3 papers for every paper of yours that gets evaluated by two reviewers plus an editor). I generally review more papers than I need to to meet this requirement because (1) I find it satisfying to contribute in this way to the primary literature, (2) I usually learn enough to compensate for the time, (3) it helps my own writing, and (4) there are some other professional benefits (e.g., you can put it on your CV; and you can gain the respect of editors, which might lead to seminar invitations, etc.). Also, the more I do, the better I become. I must be 5x more efficient and competent at reviewing papers now than I was 5 years ago. This is good in lots of ways.If you decline to review a paper, do it promptly and try to suggest one or two other people who could be qualified. Feel free to tell mentors or senior colleagues with related interests to think of you as a potential reviewer to suggest when they get a paper that they do not have time to review. Note that many editors will welcome suggestions for qualified grad students to review papers, especially if it comes from an advisor who offers to work with their student on the review. I think it would be good for everybody if this practice becomes more common.When to sign reviews? The norm is for reviewers to be anonymous to the authors. I estimate that reviewers elect to retain anonymity in >80% of the cases. Signing a negative review can create enmity among those who will later be reviewing your proposals, papers, job applications, etc. Thus it is normal and safe to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, I sign about half of my reviews. Signing my reviews seems to enforce a collegial constructive tone in my reviews. Also, I have developed many positive professional relationships as a result of identifying myself in reviews. Perhaps I have also created some enemies by signing reviews, but I have never noticed it (not that I do not sometimes get reviews that read like anonymous hate mail). I will not sign reviews if I think there is even a small chance that the authors might hold a grudge that will hurt me later. I do not sign reviews that are highly positive because it might imply that the authors owe me something later, and it diminishes the impact of the positive review for the editor, who will probably also wonder if I am trading for future considerations. Conversely, I find that I am more persuaded as an editor or author by a negative review that is signed.。

review文章的格式
Review文章通常包括以下几个部分：
引言（Introduction）：在引言部分，简要介绍主题或领域的背景信息，明确阐述本文的写作目的，概括文章的主要内容，提出论点或问题。

1.文献综述（Literature Review）：文献综述是Review文章的核心部分，主要对与主题相关
的研究进行全面的概述和评价。

该部分需要总结前人的研究成果，阐述不同观点和方法的优缺点，并指出研究的空白和不足之处。

同时，要注意文献综述要有条理，分类合理，不要过于冗长或泛泛而谈。

2.研究方法（Methodology）：在某些类型的Review文章中，如Meta-analysis或Systematic
Review，需要介绍研究方法。

这部分主要说明研究设计、数据采集和分析方法，以及如何综合和评价文献数据。

3.结果与讨论（Results and Discussion）：结果与讨论部分主要是对前人研究结果的总结和
评价，以及对结果的深入分析和讨论。

该部分应包括对结果的描述、比较和解释，以及对研究结果的意义和影响的探讨。

4.结论（Conclusion）：结论部分应对全文进行总结，概括主要观点和结论，指出研究的贡
献和价值，同时提出对未来研究的建议和展望。

5.总体来说，撰写Review文章需要具备扎实的专业基础和广泛的阅读视野，同时要注意
逻辑性和条理性，能够客观地评价前人研究成果，并提出有见地的观点和建议。

总体来说，撰写Review文章需要具备扎实的专业基础和广泛的阅读视野，同时要注意逻辑性和条理性，能够客观地评价前人研究成果，并提出有见地的观点和建议。