sci论文提交后经过评审往往有大修、小修的结果，大修说明问题较为严重，返修论文大多还要再交给审稿人重新审查，以确定问题是否得到了解决并且没有新的修改意见。今天在这里介绍sci论文大修常见的四种情况，作者可作为了解：
01主要论点不明确：
一些手稿符合一般学术标准并得出了有趣的结论，但关键信息没有得到充分阐述。一份优秀的文稿应该在提出明确论点的同时，包含清晰的核心信息。编辑Comments举例：“The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear. ”“The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly. ”
02理论框架需完善：
那些忽略了相关文献或重要理论的理论框架可能是不完整的，这类文稿提出了有前途但尚未完善的理论框架，通常会被期刊编辑要求进行“大修订”。编辑Comments举例：
“The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on…”
“In the Introduction section, the authors have merely mentioned more than 20 references without conducting a detailed literature analysis. Moreover, the research results of the last two years in the references have not been considered. Hence, the authors should make efforts to improve both the Introduction and the literature review. ”
03需要加强证据支持：
手稿应该提出清晰的论点，学术期刊甚至欢迎具有挑战性的观点。然而，这些观点必须得到令人信服的证据支持。在某些手稿中，这些证据不足，需要更详细的信息、计算、示例、图表或引用来支持。“I encourage the authors to provide more in-depth evidence. For instance, I would like to see more interview quotes and a more transparent statistical analysis. ”“The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…”
04部分不合逻辑或不清晰：
文稿中的一些部分或段落难以理解，作者需要将其删除、重新排序或重写。手稿中存在过多的结构问题通常会导致“修改后重新提交”的决定。编辑Comments举例：“In summary, theoretical aspects should be added before specific applications, e.g. ... These would strengthen the reliability of your conclusions and arise broad interest. ”“I believe the authors should add a more detailed explanation of their theoretical results.”NO.3
审稿人给出上述意见的话，作者就要认真修改自己的论文，同行评审专家和编辑确定文章需要进行大规模的修订(Resubmit for review /Major revisions)，并必须再次经历同行审查流程，作者就要引起重视，按照要求及时的修改。
