本博客素材来源于网址： http://web.njit.edu/~bieber/review.html 内容为英文，可以打开上述网页后在网站上翻译着看。 本博客对上述网页内容进行翻译整理。

怎样审稿 Michael Bieber IS Department College of Computing Sciences New Jersey Institute of Technology

纲要 简介 审稿流程注意事项 提交审稿意见时的注意事项 语法和拼写是否正确 编辑：作为对审稿人的回报，您可以做些什么

简介 本指南涉及会议和期刊文章的评审。它遵循的理念是，评审过程对作者和编辑都有好处。无论你拒稿、要求修改或接受作者的作品，论文作者都应该以非敌意的语气得到详细的反馈。做你希望别人为你做的论文审稿。一旦同意审稿，你就承担了相应的责任。如果你不能承诺这份责任，你应该立即通知编辑，并返回论文和审稿文件。编辑们知道，你可能没有时间做一篇论文的审稿，但如果你承诺了一个审稿，却审地非常敷衍了事，这是不可原谅的。此外，优秀的审稿不会被编辑忽视，并且可以随着时间的推移为您建立一个良好的声誉。

作者对审稿人也肩负着责任。审稿人自愿从繁忙的日程中抽出时间进行通篇论文的评审，并且对审稿工作认真负责。如果你提交的论文太过差劲，不仅会惹恼你的同行谁花时间来为你审稿，而且随着时间的推移你会得到一个坏的名声。你所研究的工作在你的领域圈子里的声誉也会受到影响。

审稿流程注意事项 对要评审的论文，可阅读3次：第一次阅读要对论文有大致的感觉，第二次深入阅读论文，第三次对它做标记。第三次阅读后马上填写评审表，这样记忆中的东西还是很新鲜的。

你可以将你的评审分为三个部分：（a）对评审表格的填写；（b）对论文的整体性评论；（c）对论文中个别段落的具体评论。你可以直接在纸上标出（c）部分。除非不允许，否则可以将带有标记的纸张副本返回给编辑，最终反馈给作者。有些审稿人把论文复印一份，并在复印件上清楚地抄写他们的评论。否则，您可以单独键入注释，清楚地注明页面、节、段落和/或行号。

如果你愿意的话，你可以给编辑写一个单独的、机密的笔记。一定要将其标记为“机密”，这样编辑就不会错误地转发。许多评审表单都有一个特定的区域，可以为编辑提供机密评论。但这种把作者隔绝开只和编辑沟通的做法并不提倡。一般来说，作者会从你的评审意见中受益匪浅。

不要害怕拒绝不好的论文；也就是说，不要觉得有义务接受你认为需要补充更多工作的论文。读者不想读不好的文章，而且论文作者将从多次的修改完善中有所提高。由于许多原因，论文可能很差，作者可能也无法解释清楚，举例来说，可能的情况如下：

· 概念、动机、背景、实际结果和贡献并没有在论文中得到很好的体现。

· 这篇论文可能需要大量的理论证明。

· 这项研究本身可能是低质量的，或者不是一项重要的贡献。

· 这项研究可能还为时过早、不够成熟。

· 这篇论文可能在最后一分钟被“拼凑”出来（粗制滥造）以赶上截止日期。

· 它可能不符合预定期刊或会议的要求。

· 它可能与作者所发表的其他出版物太相似（雷同）（尽管有些期刊会对会议记录中出现的论文进行细微修改——如果有任何问题，请与编辑联系）。

对于糟糕的论文，你仍然欠编辑和作者一个审稿意见（或者在最坏的情况下，一个彻底的解释）。如果这篇论文太过幼稚以至于无法对论文的各个部分给出对应的评审意见，请在总的评审意见中说明这一点。

在你的评审意见中要专业而不怀敌意。如果你对一个作者生气（例如，做了一件糟糕的工作或缺乏理论证明），你可以要么直接在你的审稿意见中对作者说，要么直接对编辑说。

提交审稿意见时的注意事项 这是审稿意见提交时要注意的几点的列表。这些内容应该有助于指导您的审稿，并为论文作者形成有帮助的审稿意见。并非以下所有的几项都是必须、甚至是可取的。请务必阅读编辑发给你的评审表，因为这将为您提供特定期刊或会议的附加审稿标准。

•摘要是总结论文、结果和贡献，还是主要解释做这项工作的原因/动机？

•作者所做的实际工作是否涵盖引言中承诺的所有内容？

•作者是否提供了足够的做这项工作的原因/动机说明？

•作者是否提供了足够的背景信息？

•所有描述是否清晰？表格和图片清楚吗？只看表格图片能明白作者的意思吗？还是说只有阅读了文本部分的内容之后才能明白表格图片的意思？表格图片是不是太多了？是否还需要额外的表格图片？是否需要一个运行场景或示例？

•研究贡献是否明确？这些贡献重要吗？

•方法是否有解释清楚，布局是否合理？作者是否证明了每一点？

•方程、算法、方法、实验和结论是否正确、可靠、全面和切合实际？

•研究是否在文献和对应的理论中有适当的基础？

•作者是否表达了研究的局限性和作者所采用的方法？

•作者是否进行了完整的分析并得出了富有洞察力的结论？

•作者是否描述了他或她的未来研究计划？是否清楚本文所述的研究将引领何处以及下一步将是什么？

•结论是否重要？结论只是论文内容的翻版吗？它是否提供了新的综合或洞察？它会让读者对研究、研究领域或未来感到兴奋吗？

•作者是否使用了重要、最新和充分的引文？引文太多了吗？有什么不相干或无关紧要的吗？他们是否处于出版的适当水平（例如，以研究为导向的期刊VS商业期刊；技术报告VS期刊文章）？对作者自己的作品引用太多了吗？你能提出作者可能忽略的任何缺失的引文吗？

•作者的写作风格如何？它是不是太“密集”而没有意义？它能保持读者的兴趣吗？是不是太随便了？请注意，非正式的风格本身有时非常有效地传达论文的观点。同样，许多作者在研究论文中使用幽默非常有效。只有当非正式或幽默阻碍了你的行动时，它才应该被摒弃。（另一方面，某些学科确实提倡非常正式的写作风格，在这种情况下，非正式风格被认为是不适当的。）

语法和拼写是否正确 这部分包括包括检查语法是否正确、拼写是否正确以及论文是否“读起来通顺”。如你所知，拼写检查既不检查语法也不检查理解。**作者应该对审稿人和编辑有足够的尊重，以便提交一篇经过彻底校对过的论文。**非母语为英语（或期刊/会议所允许的任何语言）的作者负责确保他们提交的文件具有母语者提交的质量，即使他们必须求助于某人检查语言问题。

然而，作为一个审稿人，你经常会发现作者忽略了一些小的拼写或语法错误（例如，在使用拼写检查程序后可发现的拼写错误会出现在作者所提交的论文中）。当然，你可以提出更好的方法来表达论文中的某些段落。在所有这些情况下，由您决定论文需要更改的程度。您可以决定更正前几页，或者重复出现的问题的前几例。如果论文需要重大更正，并且您已知道将再次审查更正后的草稿，您可以建议作者在修订过程中进行特定类型的检查（如拼写、语法）。

编辑：作为对审稿人的回报，您可以做些什么 编辑须知：许多审稿人都很欣赏对他们审稿意见的反馈。像学术研究的许多其他方面一样，回顾是一个学习过程。您可以考虑将您发送给作者的同一个文件包发送给每个审阅者，即，您与论文作者的通信副本，以及每个论文审阅的副本（包括他或她自己的）。这使审稿人感觉自己更像是整个过程的一部分，并会提供有价值的反馈。

How to Review Michael Bieber IS Department College of Computing Sciences New Jersey Institute of Technology

Outline Introduction Process Considerations What to Consider in a Submission Whether to Correct Grammar and Spelling Editors: What You Can Do in Return for Referees Sample Referee Forms Your Comments, Please

Introduction This guide concerns refereeing for conference and journal articles. It follows the philosophy that the reviewing process benefits the author as much as the editor. Authors deserve detailed feedback in a non-hostile tone, regardless of whether you recommend rejecting, revising or accepting their work. Do the quality of review that you wish others would do for you. By agreeing to review, you take on the responsibility of doing a thorough job. If you cannot commit to this, you should notify the editor at once and return both the paper and reviewing package. Editors understand that you may not have the time to do a thorough review, but are unforgiving if you commit to a review and then do a poor job. Also, good reviewing does not go unnoticed by editors, and can establish a useful reputation for you over time. Authors also have a responsibility to reviewers. Reviewers volunteer time from busy schedules to conduct thorough reviews, and are happy to do so for well thought-through pieces. If you submit premature work, not only will you annoy your colleagues who take the time to referee, but you will gain an unsavory reputation over time. Researchers work in rather small communities and reputations spread. Process Considerations Plan to read the submission three times: the first reading to get a feel for the paper, the second to read the paper in depth, and the third to actually mark it up. Fill out the refereeing form right after the third reading, while things are still fresh in memory. You can split your review into three sections: (a) the actual refereeing form; (b) general comments on the paper; and © specific comments on individual passages in the paper. You could mark up section © directly on the paper. Unless disallowed, you can return the editor a copy of the paper with your markup, to be returned the author. Some reviewers make a photocopy of the paper and transcribe their comments clearly on the copy. Otherwise you can type your comments separately, clearly referencing the page, section, paragraph and/or line number. You can write the editor a separate, confidential, note if you wish. Be sure to mark it “confidential” so the editor doesn’t forward it by mistake. Many refereeing forms have a specific area for confidential comments for the editor. Do not feel obligated to write things to the editor that you do not share with the authors. In general authors benefit from as much as you can tell them. Do not be afraid to reject a bad paper; i.e., do not feel obligated to accept a paper that you believe needs more work. Readers don’t want to read poor pieces, and authors will benefit from revising and publishing quality work. Papers can be poor for many reasons. Authors may not explain themselves clearly, so the concepts, motivation, background, actual results and contributions do not come across well. The paper may require drastic proofreading. The research may be of low quality or not a significant contribution. The research may be premature to publish. The paper may have been “thrown together” (unsuccessfully) at the last minute to meet a deadline. It may not fit the characteristics of the intended journal or conference. It may too similar to other publications the author has made (though some journals will publish slight modifications of papers that have appeared in conference proceedings—check with the editor if you have any questions). For poor papers you still owe the editor and the author a review (or in the worst cases, a thorough explanation). If the paper is too premature to complete all parts of the review, state this in your comments. Be professional and non-hostile in your review. If you get angry with an author (e.g., for doing a poor job or not for proofreading), you can say so – either directly to the author in your comments or just to the editor. What to Consider in a Submission This is a partial list of what to look for when reviewing a submission. The items should help both to guide your evaluation, and form helpful comments and suggestions for the author. Not all are necessary or even desirable for all papers. Be sure to read the refereeing form, as this will give you additional criteria for the particular journal or conference. • Does the abstract summarize the paper, the results and the contributions, or mostly motivate the work? • Does the author cover everything promised in the introduction? • Does the author provide adequate motivation? • Does the author provide adequate background information? • Are all descriptions clear? Are the tables and figures clear? Do they make sense on their own or only if one has read the text carefully? Are there too many? Would an additional table or figure help? Would a (running) scenario or an example help? • Are the research contributions clear? Are the contributions significant? • Is the approach clearly explained and well laid out? Does the author justify each of the points made? • Are the equations, algorithms, methods, experiments, and conclusions: correct, robust, comprehensive and sensible? • Is the research properly ground in the literature and appropriate theory? • Has the author expressed the limitations of the research and the author’s approach? • Has the author performed a complete analysis and drawn insightful conclusions? • Has the author described his or her future research plans? Is it clear where the research described in this paper will lead and what the next step will be? • Is the conclusion significant? Is it just a rehash of the paper? Does it provide new synthesis or insights? Does it leave the reader excited about the research, the research domain or the future? • Does the author use important, current and adequate citations? Are there too many citations? Are any irrelevant or insignificant? Are they at an adequate level for the publication (e.g., research oriented vs. trade journals; technical reports vs. journal articles)? Are there too many citations to the author’s own work? Can you suggest any missing citations the author may have overlooked? • How is the author’s writing style? Is it too “dense” to make sense? Does it keep the reader’s interest? Is it too informal? Note that an informal style in itself sometimes is very effective in getting a paper’s ideas across. Similarly, many authors use humor very effectively in research papers. Only if the informality or humor gets in the way, should it be discouraged. (On the other hand, certain disciplines do enforce very formal writing styles, in which case an informal style is deemed inappropriate.) Whether to Correct Grammar and Spelling Proofreading includes checking for correct grammar, correct spelling and overall, that a paper “reads well.” As you know, spelling checkers check neither grammar nor comprehension. Authors should have enough respect for the reviewers and the editors to submit a paper that has been thoroughly proofread. Authors who are not native English speakers (or whatever language the forum allows) are responsible for ensuring that their submission is of the quality a native speaker would submit, even if they must pay someone to help in the editing process. Nevertheless, as a reviewer you will often find small spelling or grammatical mistakes the author has overlooked (e.g., a typo within a correction made after employing a spell-checker). And of course you may be able to suggest better ways to phrase certain passages in the paper. In all these cases, it is up to you to decide the extent to which you edit the paper. You may decide to correct the first couple of pages, or the first couple of cases of a recurring problem. If the paper requires major corrections and you know a corrected draft will be reviewed again, you may suggest the author undertakes such proofreading as part of the revision process.

Editors: What You Can Do in Return for Referees A note for editors. Many referees appreciate feedback on their reviews. Like many other aspects of academia and research, reviewing is a learning process. You may consider sending each reviewer the same package you send the author, i.e., a copy of your correspondence with the paper’s author, as well as a copy of each of the paper’s reviews (including his or her own, in case the referee didn’t make a copy). This makes the reviewer feel more a part of the process and gives valuable feedback. In addition, many referees are building tenure and promotion files. A written acknowledgment (not email) of the referee’s help looks good in these files and is much appreciated.

Sample Referee Forms Here are some example referee forms, for your information. HICSS’95 Minitrack on Hypermedia in Information Systems and Organizations HICSS’96 Minitrack on Hypermedia Research

Your Comments, Please I would welcome your comments on these guidelines. Please email them to [email protected] - thanks!