Reviewer's comments を書くときのための文例集 (General comments)

2018/07/25 更新



  1. Summary of the paper
    • Begin
    • Summarize the paper
  2. Overall evaluation: Positive
    • 一般的な表現
    • 新規性が高い
    • 新規性が低くても褒める
    • 仕事量が多い
    • 褒めた後のコメント
  3. Overall evaluation: Negative
    • 一般的な表現
    • 新規性なし
    • Journal scope 外れ
    • その他
  4. 注意点
    • 著者に敬意を払おう
    • 意地悪にならないように
    • Limitation について
    • Backfire を避ける


  1. Specific comments の書き方
  2. 査読の際のチェック項目 (文例も)


Summary of the paper

Reviewer's comments usually start with a brief summary of the paper, which indicates that the reviewer read and understood the paper correctly. This part should, in principle, be similar to the Abstract and Conclusion of the paper, but good reviewers are required to write this part with their own words and perspectives.

The following sentences are frequently used by reviewers to summarize the paper.

To begin

It is also very common to add backgrounds prior to the sentences in the boilerplate.

  • This study investigated...
  • The work by Smith et al. showed that...
  • In this manuscript, the authors examined...
  • This manuscript presents an interesting study on...
  • The authors investigate effects of...
  • ... (何かの背景)... The authors challenged this issue by a molecular phylogenetic approach, resulting in...
  • The chief rationale for this paper seems to be to determine whether...

The following expressions are relatively minor but were actually used.

  • The authors entitled this study: "The effects of ...". ... The authors described the goal of their work as...
  • Summary: Well done, poorly motivated, and out of journal scope.
  • This is a rather unsual paper. The authors...

Summarize the paper

  • In (the) light of these results, the authors concluded...
  • Based on these results, the authors concluded...
  • 「私が理解した限りでは」 Sor far as I can tell the authors...


Overall evaluation: Positive

Positive な表現集。

General expression

  • This is an important result for understanding *** that needs to be widely circulated.
  • ... worth publication.
  • Their manuscript is concise and well organized. The group is proficient in the methodology as seen from their previous publications.
  • (some specific comments) ... but all of my suggestions are minor.
  • The study is well-done, is a technical tour-de-force, and the results conclusive. In particular, ... is impressive and advance our knowledge of ***.
  • It is my pleasure to review the manuscript entitiled ...
  • In this regard, the rationale and the preliminary data that ... is sound.
  • This study is of potential interest as the authors showed that... (直接 interesting とは書かないところに含みがある)

Pioneering work


  • This is an excellent pioneering work that has provided the essential base for...

Although not novel


  • While not entirely novel, this result extends our understanding of the effects of...

Hard work を褒める


  • ... and it is clear to see that a lot of hard work has been put into the study.
  • Overall, this study constitutes a very large body of work...


褒めた後でも、 "However,..." として修正点を指摘するのが普通である。以下は、accept を匂わせつつ修正を求める、著者らに希望を持たせるタイプのコメントである。

  • However, I have several concerns that need to be addressed before considering publication.
  • However, I feel that ... should be addressed before I would recommend this manuscript for publication.
  • Thus, several points as indicated below need to be addressed by authors to improve the quality of the article. (こういう言い方をしてくれると、著者のストレスも少なくてすむ)
  • Although the data are of high quality and interest, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript in your journal in it's current version.


Overall evaluation: Negative

一般的な dis り表現

さまざまな理由とともに使われる、応用の範囲が広い dis り表現のリスト。理由なしで "not convincing" とか言ってくる査読者もおり、イラっとくることも。

  1. ... diminish enthusiasm for the acceptance of this work.
  2. ... my enthusiasm for this paper (or proposal) is limited by concerns about the...
  3. while ... is valuable, the overall conclusion is not convincing.

Not novel


  • This is a decent manuscript representing a large body of work about ***. but the overall investigation is not novel and conclusion addressed by this paper is very weak.
  • The findings are not novel, but supportive of a large body of literature.
  • I am not certain what is substantively new in this manuscript.
  • I found no major flaws in this paper, but...

"no major flaws" は決まった言い方のようである。"no big flaws", "no major flaw" という用例はこれに比べて非常に少ない。

Out of journal scope

例として、ecology 系の雑誌にそうでない論文が投稿されてきた場合のコメントを挙げてみる。

  • Their finding about ... may indeed have significance in molecular genetics field, but it is not an adequate justification for publishing this work in this journal where readers are interested in ecological aspect of ...
  • The study needs to be framed in ecological or evolutionary context to fall within the scope of this journal.


  • Not enough data that warrants a publication.
  • 「詰めが甘い」は not thorough enough to be published as it is. とか。いい感じで実験を進めているのに、最後の重要なデータが欠けている場合など。
  • This is a poorly presented manuscript on a potentially interesting topic, namely...
  • However, this study is very poorly described in the manuscript to the point that I am very unsure of exactly what was done.
  • All of these shortcomings must be addressed before this paper could be seriously considered for publication.



Some reviewers are very proud and rude to authors. I really hate this old-fashioned way of review. Reviewers should avoid rude expressions like:

  • GOAT is an enzyme, not a transcription factor!!! (even when authors made a clearly wrong statement, usage of "!" makes nothing but distress)

Preferable expressions are:

  • The authors are encounraged to...
  • The authors may wish to...
  • The reviewer considers that...
  • I am afraid to recognize that...
  • The structure of Introduction could be improved by placing ... in context of...
  • It would be great if a statement concerning ... was added.
  • It would be nice (better) to describe...
  • the term *** would be preferred.
  • The structure of Discussion is a bit unusual in my view since...
  • Consider to add standard deviations to...


例えば CNS, PFC など「一応 spell out するのが作法だが、その雑誌の読者ならわかるだろう略語」がある。これらが spell out されていないとき、査読者は指摘するべきであるが、ここで

  • What is CNS?

と書いてくる意地悪な人が結構多い。ここは Spell out CNS と書けば、著者も不愉快な思いをしなくて済むので、ぜひそうしよう。

Limitation について

ワイリー・サイエンスカフェ より。過剰な追加実験の要求を戒めているようにもとれる。

著者がXやYを試さなかったことは「研究の限界 limitations」 に関わる部分です。論文で報告された研究が「明らかにしたこと」と「明らかにしなかったこと」との境界が分かるような査読レポートは、エディターにとって最もありがたいと Threlfall 氏は言います。その意味で同氏は、査読者が研究の限界について著者に質問し、必要ならデータを要求することを奨励しますが、同時に報告された成果とのバランスを考慮し、著者への要求が行き過ぎないよう自制を求めています。

一方、データと結論が合っていない、あるいは実験結果の間に矛盾があるといった「不一致 inconsistencies」 はそれと性質の異なる問題です。こちらについては、査読者は納得がいくまで追求して構いません。

Backfire を避ける

グラントの査読に多いと思うが、"A is not mentioned" とかいうコメントが来て、A が実際に mention されているときほど腹が立つことはない。要するに査読者が見落としているのである。


自分が査読する側に立つ場合、私は少なくとも "A is not mentioned" でなく "I could not find A" という書き方をする。この方がはるかに科学的であり、仮に A が言及されていた場合でも、著者に与えるストレスは少ないだろう。自分への backfire を避けるためにも有効なはずだ。

査読者だって論文を書くことがあるわけで、その場合には断定的な "A is not mentioned" のような表現は避けるのではないだろうか。コメントでも気をつけたいことの一つだ。