你见过最狠的SCI评论是什么? 第1页

• It is very lengthy, full of mistakes, irrelevant information, and completely fails to attract readers.

你的论文又臭又长，充满错误和无效信息，完全无法吸引读者。

• Did you have a seizure while writing this sentence? Because I feel like I had one while reading it.

你在写这句话的时候是抽风了吗？不管你疯没疯，我反正是读疯了。

• Various statements seem to be sweeping and inaccurate generalizations with little robust justification.

通篇都是笼统的、不准确的概括性语句，几乎没有强有力的理由（来证明你的观点）。

• By now, there are over 1,000 [articles on this topic], but these authors have not read a single one.

到目前为止，有一千多篇[这一主题的论文]，但我相信你们一篇都没读过。

• This is expected to be a research article that presents scientific findings, not science fiction.

你写的本该是一篇展示科学发现的论文，而不是科幻小说。

• This work is antithetical to the spirit of [XYZ] research and will impede potentially important developments.

你的大作与 [XYZ] 研究的精神背道而驰，还将阻碍学界潜在的发展。

• This paper makes no contribution.

这篇论文屁点贡献都没有！

• But fundamentally, why did you bother?

但从根本上说，你又何必这么写呢？

• The authors report results from pages 16-26. This section reflects what I would brutally call 'death by figures'.

作者在第16-26页报告了此次研究的结果。我愿无情地将这部分称为“能让人死亡的数据”。

• The manuscript is full of severe major inaccuracies and is not suitable for a scientific journal.

你的稿件有很多严重的大错误，压根不适合投稿给科学期刊。

• The work is trivial, and there is no novelty in the work, the approach or the results. The authors do not solve anything and the implications in this context are quite possibly irrelevant.

这篇论文很零碎，从内容、方法到结果统统没新意。作者没有解决任何问题，在这种情况下，这篇论文几乎没啥乱用。

• The rest of the Introduction is just as badly done as the first paragraph so I will not continue.

引言的其余部分和第一段一样糟糕，我都没有继续读下去的欲望。

• There is hardly any paragraph (even in the abstract) that is not messy, disorganized, confusing, that does not contain mistakes (some are quite embarrassing), redundancies, abusive shortcuts or discussions that sound absurd.

你就没有一个段落是能做到条理清晰、结构明确、让人一读就懂的，连摘要都一塌糊涂。有一些错误离谱得我都替你尴尬，还有一些是太过冗余，甚至还出现听起来很荒谬的结论。

• Right now, there is zero rationale for the study and zero reason to read the study.

我读到现在，感觉你做这个研究的意义是0，我阅读这篇论文的意义也是0。

• The authors should discard the data and collect it again properly.

作者应该放弃你手头的数据，重新用正确的方法收集数据。

• Limited scholarship, flawed design, and faulty logic engender no enthusiasm whatsoever.

有限的学术水平、有缺陷的研究设计和错误的逻辑，我没有任何激情来读你的这篇论文。

• That's not how science is done.

科学研究不是这样做的！！！

• The lead author of this study has an apparent history of convincing otherwise well-respected scholars to be unwitting co-authors on his poor excuses for academic papers.

这项研究的主要作者显然是欺诈其他受人尊敬的学者，在他们不知情的情况下说服其成为共同作者。

• The authors conclusions not only contradict their own data but also the laws of thermodynamics.

作者的结论不仅与他们自己的实验数据相矛盾，而且还与热力学定律相矛盾。

• Overall, I think this manuscript is a waste of time.

总地来说，我认为（写）这篇论文（的人）是在浪费时间。

• The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.

读这篇论文简直让我想死，它最大的问题就是写作风格非常糟糕。

• The paper descends into nonsense, never to return, on line 44.

这篇论文在第44行开始胡说八道，然后再也没有讲过正事。

• I would very much have liked to read the article promised in the abstract.

如果你在摘要中画的大饼能成为现实，我很乐意阅读那篇论文。

• It is at best of little value and, in the worst case, irrelevant and offensive.

往好了说，它也就是没啥价值而已。往坏了说，这篇论文无关紧要且让人觉得很受冒犯。

• Yes measurements were made, but why, besides a teaching exercise, remains obscure.

是的，测量是做了，但除了可以当成教学练习之外，有啥做的必要呢？

• What, then, is the point of this manuscript, which presents no truly new data, methods, conclusions, or arguments? I would venture that it has no raison d’etre, and is neither novel nor helpful.

这份稿件没有提出真正的新数据、方法、结论或观点，也没有说明写它的目的是什么？恕我直言，它没有存在的理由，既没有创新性也没有帮助。

啥？？你觉得以上的评论还不够狠吗！！确实，芳老师还有一些毒舌大招在后面。

以下是芳老师认为的【十条最狠的审稿人评论】，如果毒舌届有颁奖的话，这些都是世界级选手。

10. Studies undertaken in such a manner as presented here degrade all science by giving the semblance of legitimacy to illegitimate work.

用你论文里这种方式进行研究，怎么说呢，是在给不合理的东西一种合理的假象，从而贬低了科学的意义。

9. The author should abandon the premise that his work can be considered research.

你的论文能被叫做“研究成果”？？放弃这个想法吧年轻人！

8. I urge the authors to not publish this article anywhere, as it will impede the progress of scientific understanding.

我恳请该文的作者不要在任何期刊发表这篇论文，因为它是科学认识路上的绊脚石。

7. I am afraid this manuscript may contribute not so much towards the field’s advancement as much as toward its eventual demise.

恐怕这篇论文对这一学科领域的贡献主要在于“加速拖垮这一领域”，而不是推动该领域的进步。

6. The English language ranks this manuscript among the top 5 worst manuscripts I have ever reviewed.

你的英文水平成功让这篇稿件成为我审阅过的最差的5篇稿件之一。

5. This is clearly a submission that needs to be shredded, burned, and the ashes buried in multiple locations.

这分明是一份需要切碎、焚烧、将骨灰多处掩埋的内容。

4. Publication of this paper will not advance our knowledge in any shape or form, it will just result in other researchers pointing out how bad this study actually is.

这篇论文的发表，在任何形式上，都不能增加我们对知识的理解，只会导致其他研究人员指出这项研究实际上有多糟糕。

3. I have rarely read a more blown-up and annoying paper in the last couple of years than this hot-air balloon manuscript.

在过去的几年里，我基本没读到过比这篇满嘴跑火车的稿件更夸张、更烦人的论文。

2. There are two possibilities. 1) This paper is part of an experiment to try and determine how badly a research paper can be but still be accepted, or 2) The authors are actual fools and it would be in the editor’s best interest to ban them from submitting to the journal in the future.

有两种可能。 1) 这篇论文是用来做实验的，测试一篇研究论文究竟能在写得多烂的情况下仍然被发表；或者 2) 作者是真正的傻X，禁止他们向期刊投稿才不至于损坏编辑的未来利益。

那最最最狠的SCI评论呢？

我们马上揭晓毒舌冠军……

If the editor somehow decides to accept this paper, they risk permanently destroying the credibility of this journal and its entire editorial board. As well as every author who has published in this journal or will do so in the future.

如果编辑中了什么邪，决定接受这篇论文，那他们等于是赌上了该期刊和整个编委会的信誉——该行为有可能永久破坏期刊和整个编委会的信誉，对在期刊上曾经发表过、或打算在将来发表论文的作者来说是一种伤害。

——

不知道看完上面这些评论，被返稿修改的同学心里有没有好受一点鸭~是不是突然觉得自己收到的审稿人评论也不是那么难以接受？

如果还沉浸在被审稿人“斥责”的悲伤里，不如和好朋友约个饭，吃顿大餐，来点甜品，喝点小酒，把论文先放一边不要想它。等收拾好心情，再进行修改，修改好之后看看还能不能提交给其他期刊（这个要看期刊各自的具体要求哦！）。如果实在不行，那就好好总结经验，下次继续努力吧！

欢迎大家持续关注InVisor学术科研！双击屏幕解锁快捷功能哦~

如果大家对「SCI/SSCI期刊论文发表」「SCOPUS、CPCI/EI会议论文发表」「名校科研助理申请」等项目有任何想法，欢迎大家戳戳芳老师（一般人芳老师是不会告诉ta微信滴：invisor003，记得备注“知乎科研”哈~~~）❤️

推荐阅读：

• 发SCI，审稿人意见有一条是“English should be improved”，应该怎样回复？
• 科学引文索引SCI期刊给审稿人回信时有哪些技巧或模板(Response to Reviewers)？

最狠的SCI评论通常不是来自审稿人，而是学生的导师。

我在不同场合听过的就有：

• 你这论文写得和小学生作文一样，逻辑混乱、完全不通！
• 你这英语是中文翻过来的吧？咋满满的中文味？
• 找人润润色吧。
• 这得重写！
• 我觉得你要延毕了...

附赠一张表情包：

是时候搬出我之前为了降压经常看的一个神奇网站了，网站名就很硬核“Shit My Reviewers Say”，是不是瞬间就能让你血脉膨胀，多巴胺上头，哈哈

（额，没想到一个回答能带火一个问题，有朋友留言问原地址，我就更新到这里：）

我就精选一些自己觉得非常狠的comments，但为了保持原滋原味，我就不做翻译了，有些生僻词，大家有兴趣可以自己翻译一下理解，更带劲

This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author's email ID so they can't use the online system in the future.

浩哥点评：这尼玛就很离谱呀，居然用到了令人绝望（desperate）一词，而且建议封锁作者邮箱账号，这要是我的话，肯定下单滴滴打人上门揍丫一顿了

Words are used inappropriately – I count, for example, 13 instances of 'unique', but it is used correctly only once.

浩哥点评：这reviewer估计以前是教语文的吧

This would be a stronger article if its tone were less polemical and more analytical. The following paragraph, for example, will strike many of your readers as shrill. They will stop reading the article and throw it into the fire.

浩哥点评：真的好奇，他看到的那一段到底是什么神仙内容！

I understand that Wikipedia is not the best source for my information, however, I don't have access to the [peer-reviewed] literature you cite, and based on the information from Wikipedia, your hypothesis breaks down.

浩哥点评：这NM让浩哥感受到了什么叫降维打击

It is early in the year, but difficult to imagine any paper overtaking this one for lack of imagination, logic, or data – it is beyond redemption.

浩哥点评：惊现预言帝~

I don't see much science in this manuscript.

浩哥点评：我闻到了死亡的味道

当然，偶尔也有一些太拉跨的Reviewer，直接被编辑回怼了，哈哈，看着解气

比如这个：

相关回答:

——————————————12月25日更新——————————————

没想到这问题又上热榜了，这什么情况.....还有朋友留言吹更，我网站都给你们，不能自己去看么？！ 什么？难不成是想看浩哥点评？得嘞，安排一波还不行么

I was only able to get a single reviewer and rather than make you wait longer, I decided to use the single review and my own independent reading. Unfortunately, my own reaction differed from the reviewer’s reaction (scroll down below my signature). That is, the reviewer reacted positively whereas I reacted negatively and it is my reaction that counts.

浩哥点评：小编自己人脉不行找不到评审，怪我了？作者真TM倒了血霉了！

Based on theoretical considerations I don’t see a reason to perform these experiments.

浩哥点评：老子就是经费多，你管得着么？！

This result would be great if it were true.

浩哥点评：小编你知道的太多了....拖出去....

This discussion might be better directed to a different audience, perhaps an undergraduate class.

浩哥点评：可以的，意思是让转投知乎做科普呗。

It is a bit strange for me that authors have used Python for statistical analysis instead of SPSS or MATLAB as usual. Please, explain.

浩哥点评：MB，解释个毛，你管得着么！

---

  lvgirl 网友的相关建议: 
      

“Please run the paper through an automatic grammar checking tool and/or a native English speaker since every sentence in the paper is grammatically poorly formed.” 这是我自己写过最恶毒的评论了。

审稿之前，真的难以想象，一篇论文可以做到每一句话都有语病的，而且这种文章作者竟然也敢直接投SCI。再加上质量确实不行，直接拒了，不过还好这么厉害的投稿只碰到这么一篇。

---

  shuai-shuai-9-13 网友的相关建议: 
      

我努力工作，年收入突破百万。我楼下小卖部老板眼红了。

他说他每天7点开店，晚上10点关店，工作时间比我长，收入却比我低，这不公平。为此，他甚至发展出了一套小卖部老板人权理论，要求将卖给我的可乐从一瓶2块钱涨到100块钱。

他说之前他受太多委屈了，等他觉得委屈弥补回来了，他会把价钱降到一瓶4块钱的。但想像原来一样2块钱一瓶那是永远不可能的。

我默默想了一下，走多一百米，用2块钱在另一家店买了一瓶可乐。

这件事被小卖部老板知道了，他生气了，他跑去骂另一家小卖部老板，骂他不尊重小卖部老板人权理论，并且在我家楼下贴大字报隐晦地骂我。

你说我为啥讨厌他？

我不只讨厌他，我甚至想报警呢。可惜警察说这事他们管不了。

……

这件事还有后续。

后来，小卖部老板人权组织找到了我，跟我说我楼下的小卖部老板的小卖部老板人权理论不是正宗的，他们才是正宗的。

我说，那你们的是怎么样的？

他们说，我们卖3块。

---

  chen-cai-14 网友的相关建议: 
      

共产主义政党长期治理的喀拉拉邦在印度处于人类发展指数的前茅，这就是共产主义对印度的影响。

另外，南亚人是非常非常喜欢取经名的。这也是一个地域特色了。

---

  liu-zi-ming-36-64 网友的相关建议: 
      

谢邀，

基本上所有高复杂性的问题，比如说天气预报、地球洋流、股票预测、大型生态系统演化、癌症、狂犬病等等。

具体一点的，湍流、堆积固体颗粒的流动计算。

---

  ai-si-wei-er-elsevier 网友的相关建议: 
      自己蹲龄三年了，想问问其他蹲龄三年以上人的感受。

---