因為同時在運作3本國際英文刊（IJABE, IAEJ, CIGR Journal）,，論文同行評審的專家來自世界各地。每次收到的評審意見千差萬別,，而且不同國家或地區(qū)的專家的評審意見呈現(xiàn)一定的規(guī)律性,，隨即不由得做些比較。比較得出的基本結論是：歐美國家專家的評審意見詳盡具有更大參考價值,，臺灣地區(qū)的同行評審專家次之,，大陸專家的評審意見最為簡省。文后附上幾篇評審意見（所列大陸專家評審意見還是相對較好的）,，看看便知,，一目了然。

我曾與編輯同行討論關于國內(nèi)專家審稿的問題,。共同的見解是,，一線一流的專家基本不審稿。若應邀審稿,，要么直接拒審,，要么敷衍幾句了事；比較認真的專家大都讓其所指導的研究生代為評審論文,。不論讓誰審,，最后的評審意見與國外專家的評審相比總不令人滿意，存在較大的差距,。

國外專家評審論文大都是義務勞動,，沒有任何報酬。但專家們認為自己作為科研人員是科學共同體中的一分子,，有義務擔任同行專家為他人研究成果的學術質量把關,。自己為別人的論文評審把關付出了智慧和勞動，別人也會為自己的研究和論文評審把關,，也會付出相應的勞動,。專家之間相互協(xié)作，相互幫助，雖然沒有評審報酬,，但大家都覺得平等,。而且，國外的專家大都言行一致,，故能認真地做好每一篇文章的評審工作,。有的評審意見詳盡的令人贊嘆、欽佩和感動,。因此,，大家看到他們的評審意見都非常詳盡而具有參考價值。

而國內(nèi)的專家評審論文為何大都倉促應付,，三言兩語,，或言之無物，或毫無參考價值,？主要原因是一線一流的專家都太“忙”,，以至忙得都沒時間做學術了。據(jù)我從事學術期刊工作十多年的經(jīng)歷,，不論評審中文文章還是英文文章,，國內(nèi)專家評審意見普遍簡單，評審的質量不高,，不但看不出有改觀的跡象,，還有進一步惡化的趨勢。文章中存在的很多的問題,，專家審后沒有看出來或沒有指出來,。如果直接發(fā)表，錯誤或疏漏太多影響論文的質量和期刊的聲譽,。在外審專家靠不住時,，就要依靠內(nèi)審做些完善和提高。如果外審專家把不好關,，編輯部又無能力通過內(nèi)審把關,，發(fā)表出來的論文的質量也就可想而知了。是否國內(nèi)專家不擅長評審論文呢,？非也,。據(jù)了解，許多國內(nèi)專家被國外知名期刊邀請審稿時,，他們非常積極認真地評審論文,，并在規(guī)定時間返回頗有水準的評審意見。據(jù)說他們也能做得與歐美國際同行專家一樣好,?？梢姡瑖鴥?nèi)專家評不好國內(nèi)期刊論文不是水平問題，而是態(tài)度問題,，“時間”問題,，或者有其他方面的原因。

同行評審是學術期刊論文質量把關的重要途徑,。 如果大家都不在乎,，把嚴肅認真的“盲審”變成“瞎審”，學術危矣,！國內(nèi)期刊請國內(nèi)專家評審論文大都支付審稿費的,。當然，限于各期刊的經(jīng)濟困難,，審稿費報酬普遍都不高。因此,，同行專家大都不很在乎那點可憐的審稿費,。如果評審不好文章會影響專家的聲譽和公信度。 國內(nèi)特別是大陸的專家既不在乎錢,，也不在乎自己的聲譽,，不知道他們究竟在乎啥？

中國是雷鋒誕生的國度,，按理說,，當志愿者做公益應該很有基礎。但在學術圈,，就拿國內(nèi)外同行專家無私奉獻評審論文作比較,，中國的同行專家做的還很不夠，需要好好向國際同行學習,。

附：CIGR Journal欄目主編加拿大專家對一篇退稿文章的評審意見

June 27, 2011

Dear Prof. H L L:

Re: CIGR Manuscript 1911 EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

As CIGR section editor, I have conducted a preliminary review of the above manuscript. The manuscript addresses a significant engineering problem in agricultural crop production, and as such, the subject matter is of interest to CIGR. However, the manuscript is deficient in several scientific areas.

The decision is to decline the manuscript without peer review. My preliminary review is attached to the end of this email. Please note that the preliminary review is by no means a comprehensive review.

The manuscript is released, and you are free to submit it for publication in another journal. Thank you for considering CIGR for publication of your work and I wish you success in getting your work published.

Sincerely

CIGR Section III editor,

Research Scientist, Agricultural Engineering,

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

Section Editor Review

Title: EFFECTS OF TRACTOR INFLATION PRESSURE AND TRAFFIC ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CIGR # 1911

Authors: H L L et al.

June 27, 2011

General:

The manuscript addresses soil compaction by multiple passes with agricultural machinery which is a timely topic and of importance to sustainable agricultural production. There are numerous grammatical errors although the meaning is generally clear. It is strongly recommended that the authors seek the assistance of someone well versed in English to help with the grammar.

The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form. It needs a lot of work. The biggest problem with the manuscript is that key pieces of information are not given, and that the data analysis is not complete. Some of the major deficiencies are listed below although this is by no means an exhaustive list.

Soil characteristics. It is well known that soil characteristics have a huge influence on soil compaction. The only description given is that the soil was a sandy loam. Things like soil series, percent sand, silt and clay, soil organic matter all influence compaction and need to be provided.

Tractor specifications: Total tractor weight, tractor axle (or wheel) weights, are critical pieces of information required for compaction studies, but they are not given. Tire pressure was given, but no information was given on whether these pressures were the same for front and rear tires.

Often, tractor manufacturers recommend different pressures for front and rear tires, particularly on tractors with different sizes of front and rear tires.

Slip was measured, but there was no mention made of whether the tractor was free wheeling (no implement draft) or whether it was pulling a load. The drawbar load on a tractor has a huge effect on wheel slip, and must be specified.

It was mentioned that a 4WD tractor was used, and different tire sizes were given for front and rear tires which implies that it was a front wheel assist. It needs to be specified whether or not the front wheel drive was engaged.

Results: A randomized complete block statistical design with three replicates was specified. However, the results are given in a series of tables with simple means with no statistical analysis. The results need to be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, i.e. ANOVA or multiple regression analysis, and appropriate post hoc tests applied to determine which means are statistically different from each other. The experimental design employed lends itself to standard statistical analysis of the results. Graphs should be used when appropriate to help illustrate the data and the trends.

Table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and elsewhere. Cone index has wrong units. Cone index is normally given in MPa or kPa. Also, the values for cone index are much lower than normally expected.

Section 2.3 It is not necessary to list all of the equipment used such as oven, air compressor, etc. All you need to say is that samples were oven dried at 105º C for soil moisture determinations. Things like air compressor and pressure gauge are every day shop equipment, are understood to be necessary for any type of experiment where inflation pressures are changed.

However, things like the penetrometer, and shear vane meter should be specified. These are specialized pieces of equipment and their performance can affect the results.

Section 2.5. Need to provide information on which soil cone penetrometer you used. Also, how many penetrometer measurements per plot per pass? Soil cone penetrometer measurements are typically very “noisy” with a high degree of variability, and multiple measurements are required per plot to get a reasonable estimate of mean penetration resistance. Also, were penetrometer measurements made prior to the first pass to get an estimate of initial soil conditions? Data prior to first pass were given in Table 3.1, but the measurements were not mentioned in the text.

Section 2.6. How did you get the shear vane measurements at the various depths? Presumably, you excavated to the required depth, and made the shear vane measurements at the bottom of the excavation. You need to describe the method here.

Section 2.7. This section describes in great detail how samples were dried in the oven. This technique is well known. All you need to say that samples were oven dried at 105º C for dry weight determinations. Activities like weighing on a sensitive scale are understood as necessary to get dry bulk density data. However, the critical piece of information of how you obtained samples of a known volume for the dry bulk density determinations is completely missing. Presumably, this was via core samples. You need to specify the coring device, in particular, core diameter and depth. You do not need to give the formula for calculating dry bulk density (Eq. 2.1), or soil moisture content. These formulae are well known by anyone working with soil physical properties.

Section 3.2. Not necessary to show all of the detailed calculations for each inflation pressure. Actually, they are all incorrect as they are all missing a closing parenthesis in the denominator which makes the formula ambiguous. Just give the formula, and give the results for the various

inflation pressures in a table.

Section 3.3 The first sentence does not match the data. If wheel slip is 3.6% at 48 kPa and 2.7% at 97 kPa, then the wheel slip decreases, not increases when inflation pressure is increased from 48 kPa to 97 kPa. Is this change statistically significant?

Conclusions:

Many of the conclusions are not conclusions from the present study, as things like tire foot print, tire durability, soil deformation were not measured in this study. Some of the information in the conclusions could be included in the discussion section with appropriate references to help explain the results, or the consequence of the results. The conclusions should be limited to the conclusions of the study, i.e. what was done, what was learned, and perhaps the implications or importance of the results to agriculture, science, or future research.

References. There are numerous punctuation errors in the references. References are tedious, and the formatting requires special attention. Reference by Raghavan and McKyes 1978 is missing. This was cited on page 5.

Also, it is McKyes, not McKyers, there is no ‘r’ in McKyes. You need to carefully check that each reference in the references was cited, and that each citation in the text is included in the references. I did not do a thorough check on this aspect.

________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Wang Yingkuan

Editor-in-Chief of CIGR Journal

http://journals./cigr/index.php/Ejounral

臺灣一位大學教授評審論文的意見

General Comments:

The paper focuses on the phone-based system for vegetable production traceability in the field. The topic is interesting. There are some points in the paper that need to be further clarified.

Specific comments:

1. In Abstract, the authors mention that “the compatibility test showed that the success rate was 87.5% on average……”. Why is the average success rate 87.5%?

2. What is the benefit if farmers use the MPRSVT?

3. More details are needed to describe the structure of using the DBMS. Maybe the authors can use the E-R model to explain the DBMS.

4. In Page 7, what is the “CLDC”?

5. More details are needed to explain the operation records of different activities merged into one group.

6. In Figure 3, there is a lot of information regarding the field being able to be inputted in MPRSVT. However, the data packet which is explained in page 8 only consists of the field planting date, field planting field ID, field planting category, field planting species, etc. How does other inputted information of the MPRSVT send to the database? For example, are the fertilization information, pest prevent information, and harvest information also sent by the SMS format? If so, what is the packet format of that information?

7. In the caption of Figure 4, what is MRKSVT?

8. In Page 9, why was the success rate of the MPRSVT operated on the mobile phones without expansion cards less than that of the mobile phones with expansion card?

Some minor issues.

1) In Page 3, “Sections 4 reports the results……..” should be modified to “Section 4 reposts the results….”

2) In Page 7, what is the “UIQ”?

3) In Figure 4, the text “USB Connection” was overlapped by the line.

4) In Figure 4, the line with the “Information Collection” is missing an arrow.

5) In Figure 7, the text “field identifying number” was covered by the line.

6) In Figure 8, some texts are placed out of the frames.

7) Please use consistent fonts in figures throughout the article.

Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor/Editor-in-chief

I recommend the authors should use consistent fonts throughout the article. The paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

中國大陸專家1評審論文意見

Section III: Comments

This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need.

General Comments:

This paper assess the O₂ consumption rate and the CO₂ evolution rate in tomato pomace treated with Pleurotus ostreatus without and with Mn to determine if peak colonization rate (for heightened delignification) was delayed by amendment. Generally speaking, the author’s work is useful and suggestive. The author gives a brief introduction to the related work and compares his ideas to others. The theoretical analysis of this article is strong. In all, this manuscript has good novelty and strong technical strength, I’m looking forward the results of further investigations on this topic.

Specific comments:

In Table 1, notes are not enough in this manuscript. In the Results and Discussion, results have been detailed explained, but some theoretical analysis of the experimental data are not sufficient.

Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor

I hope the paper will be published to guide more researchers.

Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)

中國大陸專家2評審論文意見(相對而言屬于國內(nèi)專家評審較為認真仔細的了)

Section III: Comments

This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need.

General Comments:

Variable Spray will play an important role in saving resources, protecting environment, raising quality of agricultural product. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate PWM-based continuous variable spray in terms of spray distribution pattern, spray droplet size, and spray angle for flat-fan, hollow-cone and solid-cone nozzles. The test design, results, analysis and conclusion are correct. After re-review, this paper may be published, I think.

Specific comments:

(1) I have read a paper named “Variable rate Continuous Spray Equipment Based on PWM Technology and Its Spray Characteristics”, which was published in Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2008, 39 (6): 77-80 (in Chinese)”(see the attachment), I think that is a previous study work of the authors. If that is correct, I suggest the author adding that paper in the references of this paper. And then, the contents which have been described in the previous paper can be deleted from this paper.

(2) In the abstract “The sensitivities of the spray angles to flow-rate are 0.8254^o/%,、0.6681^o/%、0.5761^o/% respectively for flat-fan, the hollow-cone and the solid-cone nozzles”. In English, without the symbol “,、”.

(3) The numerical data in the conclusion are not the same as those in the abstract”.

Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor

Reviewers’ information (Blind to Authors)

中國大陸專家3評審論文意見

Section III: Comments

This section is the most valuable part of the review for the author(s), who are extremely interested in how you formed your opinion of this paper. Please provide specific comments that will help the author(s) understand your review, and possibly prepare a revision. Use all the space you need.

General Comments:

This paper is more important, but it still needs major revision requiring re-review.

Specific comments:

Revision suggestions of this paper:

1. The study results and conclusions should be clarified in abstract.

2. It should be described clearly about the data and size of NACA0015 airfoil which was selected in the numerical simulation in section 2.1.

3. It should be described clearly about the specific quantitative conditions of icing in section 3.

4. This paper is required re-review after revision.

Confidential Comments to Associate Editor/Division Editor