最近一年的时间里，极少预览新闻性的该文。有点儿违反的本意。即便，本最先的见解，就是医学与学术科学研究一道道，身心健康和科学普及交相辉映。

未来呢，却是继续充分发挥正能量，多写医学科学普及该文和新闻性该文，为听众无私奉献最真挚的文海。

由于缺乏经验，最近预览极少，使掉了许多歌迷，以后3000+，现在都不出3000了。不过，没有矛盾，我会为遗留下的蒙杜布洛县，重大贡献更多有用有象征意义的文海。

明天，我就以Spandidos学术科学研究期刊周刊社对reviewer草案指示为例，看一看这些SCI学术科学研究论文的周刊（1-4分居多）的着眼点。

(A) Provide anoverview/summary of the manuscript

(B) Introduction and discussion

1. Has any relevant published work not been cited?

2. Have the authors highlighted the aims, significance andthe novelty of their work?

(C) Materials and methods

1. Please comment on the appropriateness of the methods and statistical analyses used, includingwhether alternative methods should be used instead of, or in addition to thecurrent experiments.

2. Ethics/guidelines: have the mostrecent ethical or staging system classification guidelines been followed? Haveany mis-identified cell lines beenused? Has the paper been approved/consent from patients has been obtained?

3. Please comment on thelimitations of the methods used and whether the authors have appropriatelydiscussed this.

(D) Results

1. Please comment on thequality of the data presented, including the reliability and validity of the results and the figures.

2. Have the authors presented the relevant controls?

3. Are the conclusions made supported by the data presented?

(E) Quality of english language

1. Can you comment on the level of the English?

2. Do you believe the manuscript should be language editedprior to acceptance?

(F) Additional comments

Reviewers please note that Spandidos Publications does not publish supplementary files, so all data is expected to be incorporated in the main manuscript for publication. Any supplementary files requested by the reviewer should be for review purposes only and not due for publication.

Responsibility of reviewers

Reviewers areasked to judge the quality of the research reported objectively and respect theintellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticismappropriate. Reviewers should clearly explain and support their judgments asmuch as possible and in such a way that editors and authors may understand thebasis of their comments.

Reviewers shouldpoint out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement thatan observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should beaccompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to theeditors attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript underconsideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently toanother journal.

A reviewer should treat a manuscriptsent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nordiscussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specificadvice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted shouldbe disclosed to the editor.

Reviewers should not use or discloseunpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscriptunder consideration, except with the consent of the author.

Final acceptance of all submittedmanuscripts is a decision made by the Editor(s) in consultation with theEditorial Board and reviewers. If a manuscript does not meet the standards of thejournal or is otherwise lacking in scientific rigor or contains majordeficiencies, the reviewers will attempt to provide constructive criticism toassist the authors in ultimately improving their work for publication, here orelsewhere. Manuscripts not invited for resubmission will not be reconsidered

If a manuscriptreceives favorable reviews but is not accepted outright following the initialreview, it may be invited for reconsideration with the expectation that theauthors will fully address the reviewer’s criticisms. Resubmitted manuscriptswith major revisions will be sent back for peer review.

Where an authorbelieves that an editor has made an error in declining a paper, they may submitan appeal. The appeal letter should clearly state the reasons why the author(s)considers the decision to be incorrect and provide detailed, specific responsesto any comments relating to the rejection of the review. Further advice frommembers of the journal’s Editorial Advisory Panel external experts will besought regarding eligibility for re-review.

作为该周刊社母公司学术科学研究期刊的reviewer四大，通常却是较为认同该学术科学研究期刊草案指示的。虽然该周刊社，目前享有的周刊都并非最高分周刊（都在5分下列），但是，相较许多须要SCI学术科学研究论文大学毕业的通常小学生，却是能去高度关注的。即便，许多太矮小上的该文，并非他们都能达至的。但是，从草案人的上看他们的该文，对该文的刊登很大是有益处的。

或者说，译者如果若能轮转思索，用可靠的主观信息展现他们的科学研究结论，写下合乎reviewer及editor味道的该文，对该文的刊登很大是有自身利益的。

愿责任编辑的大部份听众们，都能在初夏时节里，信息喔，该文喔。