第一篇：論文投稿 審稿

我的論文投稿與審稿經歷

文章來源： 文章作者： 發布時間：2010-02-11字體： [大 中 小]

我的論文投稿與審稿經歷前兩天一篇文章剛剛被synth met接收了,歷時八個月,這個倒也無關緊要了,總比之前提的另一篇(也是這個雜志),歷時九個月,催了好幾次,終于回復一下,說是圖不清楚,于是給拒了.那時抓狂的心都有了.算到現在,也投了無數次的稿子了,心得倒也有了一點.首先,投稿當然要好好的看清雜志的投搞要求,是什么樣的格式,需要什么樣的材料,是一個個的傳圖還是放到文章里面,需要圖表摘要否?圖的尺寸與分辨率是不是達到要求?就是這個分辨率的事,我在投JAPS的時候來來回回改動了六七次,最終才終于達到了要求,我覺得可能也是因為格式不太對,所以審的時候也就很長(大約七八個月),后來有了這次教訓,又投了一回稿了,格式完全正確,在一個月之后就接收了.其次,要反反復復的多改幾次文章,很多人一開始寫完了一篇英文文章(尤其是第一次寫的),總是覺得很完美了,因為這應該說是一次挑戰.但很多情況下,這樣寫出來的文章里面的毛病可能是一堆一堆的,如果自己不來回推敲上三四次的話,拿出來可能會讓人笑話,因為里面說不定就有一個諸如a,an,單數復數等非常簡單的語法問題.這時建議把稿子隔兩天看一遍,改得差不多了,再找同組的師兄弟姐妹們看一下,差不多 了還應該找一個外語比較牛的(當然如果自己的外語很牛也當然OK)過一遍,最后如果導師負責任的話他再幫你修改,也會有導師不太看的時候,那你就自己拿定主意投吧.再次,COVER LETTER一定要好好的檢查,一定不要犯下以桃代李的錯誤.有人會在某雜志退稿之后,再改投別的期刊,但匆匆之中就忘了把Cover letter里面的雜志名稱換了,于是這讓編輯會比較郁悶,比較開明的編輯可能會跟你開玩笑,但有時也會有編輯說你既然是投這個雜志,那你發錯地方了,干脆就給拒掉.所以,萬事小心.還有,推薦審稿人,這個有時也是一個很關鍵的因素,有的人可能會不屑于此,不過這真得不是一個應該忽視的問題.很多人可能習慣于推薦自己熟悉的人,這當然無可厚非,但也不能總是這樣來選,我覺得在你的參考文獻里引用的較多的人,應該盡量推薦一下.另外,也可以選擇你引過他的一篇文獻,但卻有點重點引用的意思.這樣,這個審稿人看到你的引用,會心情稍好.呵.另外,作為審稿人,也曾經審過了近二十篇的文章,當然里面有大部分是幫導師審稿.從審稿人的角度,我覺得第一點你的英語表達一定不要出現一些太明顯的小錯誤,否則會讓審稿人覺得你不重視這次投稿;其實,你的投稿過程一定要謹慎,可能你投完了之后沒有檢查一下,結果會落了某個圖也不一定(我剛剛就碰到這樣的稿子),這也會使人覺得你不細心;還有就是一定要突出你的重點,如果在摘要里看不到你的亮點,會讓人很難有興趣抱著一顆要接收的心來看,那時有可能就是在盡量挑你的毛病.暫時想到這么多了,希望能跟大家分享。

第二篇：運動會投稿須知和審稿制度

2017運動會投稿須知

同學們，校運會己經開始了，賽場已隨槍聲而沸騰，你是否也難抑心中的激動？那就把心情融入紙筆，為運動員吶喊助威，為成功者喝彩，給失利者安慰，寫下班級風采，寫下健兒精神吧！以下是此次校運會投稿的注意事項：

1、計分規則：過一審，加1分，過二審，再加1分。

2、每個班級3天僅限投稿100篇，每個半天每班的稿件數量不得超過20張，最后半天不得超過10張，超出的部分不作數。

3、每篇稿件字數請控制在80-200左右。

4、稿件要求：字跡工整，紙張整潔，每篇稿件紙張至少要一半科作業紙大小，字跡潦草，紙張破損紙張不整潔不予錄用。

5、稿件內容富有真情實感，不空泛。

6、嚴禁抄襲（兩句以上視為抄襲，詩句，名人名言，歌詞除外），一經發現扣三分。

7、干擾審稿工作的班級，酌情扣分。

投稿時間：上午8:20——10：00

下午：2:00——4：30 投稿地點：主席臺

注：此次投稿加分皆會記入此次校運會班級量化總分，每半天公布一次加分情況，截稿后才可查詢；為了符合二級達標的規范，現在只有寫給運動員的加油稿才能被廣播站播報，其余如寫給裁判員等非運動員的稿件通過審查的可照常加分，但不予以播報。

2017.10.17

第三篇：論文評審稿稿

幼兒園體育活動的實踐與探索

評審稿

摘要：法國著名學家蒂索從醫學的角度來評價體育活動：“運動能代替藥品，但世界上任何藥品都不能取代運動的好處”。幼兒期是身體發育最快的時期，而運動則成為他們鍛煉身體的客觀需要，以實現其身體發育和運動能力發展的平衡。從心理發展的角度看，運動則是幼兒探索客體環境的最有效手段，他們不僅需要通過運動來感知世界，而且需要通過運動來積累經驗，從而為他們的心理發展打下基礎。因此，不論從新《綱要》提出的幼兒園任務，即對幼兒實施體、智、德、美全面發展的教育中，還是從幼兒一日活動內容時間安排中，都將體育活動放在幼兒園教育活動的重要位置。

關鍵詞：體育活動 鍛煉身體平衡

前言：戶外體育區域活動是幼兒園體育活動的一種特殊的組織形式，是對幼兒園基本的體育活動形式的一種補充。它是指幼兒在一定的體育活動區域內自主自愿的游戲活動。它可以打破幼兒年齡、班級界限。擴大幼兒之間的接觸與交往，使幼兒在活動過程中，相互影響、共同提高與發展，同時也能滿足幼兒多方面的需要，充分體現幼兒是活動的主人。

新《綱要》指出：“幼兒園的教育活動，是教師以多種形式有目的、有計劃地引導幼兒生動活潑、主動活動的教育過程”。我們西塘鎮中心幼兒園積極貫徹落實《規程》精神，在保證每天一小時體育活動時間的基礎上，精心設計新穎多變的游戲活動，有目的、有計劃地 1 引導幼兒積極探索游戲的玩法；同時。因地制宜，充分搜集廢舊物品和自然物制作各種戶外體育器械，并且就開展戶外分區體育活動進行了一系列的研究。

(一)注重對戶外體育區域活動的研究

《綱要》中明確地把“為幼兒提供健康、豐富的生活和活動環境，他們多方面發展的需要”作為重要內容之一，這對促進幼兒發展，逐步提高教育質量具有十分重要的意義，為此，我們在戶外區域活動上作了一些探索，我們幼兒園是20世紀90年代初新建的園所，辦學規模不大，沒有多余的輔助用房，對開展區域活動有一定的困難，因此，我們把重點放在戶外體育區域活動上，并進行了一年多的課題跟蹤研究，取得了階段性的成績。與2002年進行全園性推廣、普及。

1、積極創設適宜、豐富、多樣的體育活動環境

首先我們充分挖掘并利用幼兒園現有的戶外活動場地和鍛煉器械的最大功效，巧妙地利用與開發環境，按一定方式進行區域劃分，按不同的基本動作進行分區。將全園的場地、器械按照其功能的不同，幼兒年齡層次、能力差異的不同分成了各種活動區，如：鉆爬區、觸跳區、投擲區、平衡區、拍球區、綜合區等，保證幼兒戶外鍛煉的時間，將體育課與戶外體育活動有機結合，因地置宜，充分利用陽光、空氣、水等自然因素，合理規范地設置場地。這種區域式活動使得孩子們鍛煉的目的性強、層次性、差異性得到了保證。其次，教師們自己動手利用廢舊材料制作了大量簡易而牢固、美觀而實用的晨間體育 2 器械。如用易拉罐制作了練習近平衡能力及訓練幼兒膽量的“梅花樁”，用可樂瓶做成套圈的“靶子”、用鐵絲制作了會滾動的鐵環等。另外在戶外活動場地的創設上我們不僅注重物質條件——“硬環境” 的創設，而且還注重文化氛圍——“軟環境”的營造，把“硬環境”和“軟環境”緊密結合。剛開始我們各區域沒有標志，幼兒活動時較盲目，發現問題后我們馬上在各個活動區域內，設置明顯的標志，在標志上配上符合區域特點的圖畫文字，創設文化背景，如在活動區里：我們設置了“我勇敢”、“互相幫助”、“不推不擠”以及各種體育動態等圖畫，讓幼兒從中學會不怕困難，勇敢堅強；學會互相謙讓，學會合作。環境的創設為幼兒開展體育活動提供了物質的保證。充分體現了《綱要》中健康領域的要求：即“在體育活動中，培養幼兒堅強、勇敢、不怕困難的意志品質和主動、樂觀、合作”的思維理念。

2、積極開展晨間分區體育活動

為了讓孩子們在活動中既能愉快的玩，又能達到鍛煉的目的，我們既規定幼兒每天可以在兩個不同主題的區域中鍛煉，在每個區域中又鼓勵幼兒自己選擇不同的游戲器械進行鍛煉，從周一到周五輪流交換不同的主題活動區，由于一周中每天沒有重復鍛煉的內容，幼兒始終能保持參與活動的興趣，幼兒鍛煉的積極性、主動性也提高了，幼兒在活動中不僅發展各項基本動作，提高身體素質，而且體驗到了參與的快樂，身心愉悅，促進了身心全面健康發展。

(二)科學指導并建立常規 在活動區中，教師的指導不僅指指導幼兒的活動，還包括活動計劃的制定和活動區常規的建立。1）精心制定活動計劃

活動計劃的制定是實現科學指導的切入點。它能增強教師指導的目的意識，規范教師的教育行為。因此，在制定計劃時，我們首先依據各活動區教育功能與各年齡段幼兒的特點和實際發展水平，結合教育總目標，確立階段性的目標和重點。其次，我們充分體現了計劃和目標的漸進性和發展性，在月、周的游戲目標中逐步提高要求，有明確的目的性和切實的針對性。

a）在設置區域面積大小時，我們根據本園場地大小恰當安排，每個區域我們安排一位教師負責該區域的活動，以便較容易地實施管理和指導。

b）各區域有明顯的標志和確定的活動范圍，而且各區域之間保持著一定的距離，以使區域的分布更為明顯，這樣有利于幼兒選擇區域，也有利于幼兒在換區域活動時作適當的身體調整。

c）活動環境創設與活動材料的投放因考慮幼兒的年齡、能力以及興趣的差異，如鉆爬區，擺放的障礙物有高有低，這樣才能滿足不同幼兒活動的需要，有助與幼兒體能不斷發展。

2）建立良好的常規

建立良好的活動區常規不僅可以培養幼兒的積極性、主動性，而且還可以培養幼兒的自律行為和責任感。由于活動區打破了年齡班的界限，幼兒與幼兒之間，幼兒與活動區教師之間都不熟悉，這便給各區 組織工作帶來一定的困難，我們通過研究與討論，決定以佩帶胸卡的方法來進行組織，每個班佩帶一種動物胸卡，并寫上姓名及身體情況。同時還制定了活動區常規，主要包括：1)每個活動區的標志。2）活動區的人數。3）玩具材料合理利用，有序擺放。4）設計活動登記表，登記幼兒參加活動情況等。在活動中教師們還幫助幼兒建立了取放玩具的常規，換區活動的常規。進區時要求幼兒向指導教師問好，出區時主動道別。指導老師看了幼兒的胸卡并作活動記錄，活動結束后，各班教師統計幼兒在活動區活動的情況，并建議和提醒部分幼兒多玩幾個區域活動。

（三）開展混齡區戶外活動，增加合作機會

開展大帶小分區混齡幼兒戶外體育活動能擴大幼兒的合作面，提高幼兒交往能力，我們嘗試在開展混齡幼兒體育活動的基礎上，進行指定范圍內的分區混齡體育活動，為幼兒創設一個主動合作的群體環境，能培養幼兒的合作交往能力及良好的心理素質。在嘗試中我們發現有組織的大帶小，大帶中的混齡體育活動，幼兒之間的交往從一對一交往，過渡到組對組的交往，在活動中孩子們既享受到了游戲的快樂，又體驗到了交往合作的樂趣。

（四）教師在活動區教學中的主要作用

區域性自由活動是放開幼兒的手腳，不是放棄教師的指導。活動前，教師應對幼兒想做什么，有可能怎樣做要有心理準備。指導要放在活 動前的組織上。其次在活動中觀察每個幼兒的一舉一動，以便引導幫助。

1）組織幼兒做好身體的準備與放松，由于進入活動區活動時，幼兒情緒高漲，活動量較大，而且各活動區的活動內容又有較大的差異。因此在幼兒參加活動區活動之前，我們帶幼兒進行一些身體的放松整理的活動，以保護他們的身體健康。

2）在區域活動中，我們要相信孩子，讓幼兒成為學習的主人。如首先讓幼兒熟悉場地，熟悉各種活動器材的性能，還讓幼兒熟悉各區指導老師。許多幼兒怕生人，特別是小班幼兒多依賴本班的老師，在陌生教師面前變得拘謹，容易使活動受局限。我們在為幼兒提供了適宜的活動環境以后，教師就引導幼兒到活動中去，鼓勵他們多玩些地方，采用換位的方法，以教師的“動”來引導幼兒的“動”，開始時教師換位的次數稍多一些，隨著活動的展開，幼兒不再依賴本班教師了，換位的時間逐步延長至定位。

3）在活動中，我們將與孩子平等相待，將教師是“傳授者、維持者、調解者的角色轉向幼兒活動中的支持者、合作者與引導者”。在活動中仔細觀察每個幼兒的一舉一動，發現某個幼兒的創新動作，馬上引導其他幼兒模仿，發現危險動作及時制止，對膽小能力弱的幼兒扶一把，幫一把；對運動量過度的幼兒及時提醒，使活動成為幼兒“真正的游戲”。

（五）在區域活動中培養幼兒合作能力 現在的孩子多為獨生子女，他們集長輩的疼愛于一身。一般的要求都能得到滿足，久而久之有的幼兒心中只有自我，毫無旁人。如玩玩具各自槍一大堆自管自玩。走樓梯時倆人拉手走得快根本不管走得慢的是否跟上，這種缺乏合作精神的行為對他們將來發展是很不利的，所以在區域活動中我們精心設計、提供機會，讓幼兒嘗試合作帶來的樂趣。

在平衡區，我們因地制宜，利用圍在草坪邊上的輪胎（輪胎大半埋在地里）當做“獨木橋”，供幼兒練習近平衡。輪胎踩上去有彈性，膽小的幼兒別提了，原來會走平衡木的幼兒有的也不敢走了。我們采用大幫小兩人合作，一個幼兒在輪胎上走，一個幼兒當“拐杖”，兩人輪流進行，他們相互支持幫助越走越快，漸漸地學會了獨立走輪胎。平衡區雖小，卻給幼兒帶來成功的喜悅，同時培養了幼兒不怕困難，積極進取、友好合作的良好品質。

但有些活動想讓幾個幼兒一起活動，就是效果不太好。那么我們在區域活動中有意設計了小轎子、籮筐、滾筒等活動材料。使用這些活動材料，就要求幼兒與他人合作，幼兒為了玩到這些材料，力求去尋找伙伴，久而久之，幼兒學會了合作。

六、經驗和體會

經過幾年來的探索和實踐，我園不僅探索出一套適合孩子身心特點的戶外分區體育活動方法，而且對幼兒身體發育、心智發展也起到了很大的促進作用。首先由于區域活動內容豐富、生動活潑，富有自主性、啟發性，幼兒都樂意參加。區域活動的開展，使我園晨間活動參與率達百分之九十六以上。其次在自由探索中誘發了幼兒的創造性，發展了幼兒的創造力，豐富了幼兒的知識，在體育活動中幼兒通過自己的創造和想象發展活動，獨立快速和機智靈活地處理活動中發生的各種問題，使觀察和注意、思維和想象力得到較大發展。第三，培養了幼兒的情感，發展了幼兒的個性。在戶外分區體育活動中，幼兒學會了與同伴相互交往，學會了關心年幼的弟妹，培養了規則意識、集體觀念及交往能力，促使了幼兒的社會性的發展。

總之，在提倡素質教育、個性化教育的今天，能充分讓兒童自主探索、自由交往、獨立學習的活動區活動形式是幼兒園教育模式發展的大趨勢。我們應認真總結，不斷反思，以期形成符合中國國情的教育活動模式，更好地促進兒童全面發展。

第四篇：英文論文審稿意見

This paper addresses an important and interesting problem-automatically identifying adult accounts on Sina Weibo.The authors propose two sets of behavior indicators for adult groups and accounts, and find that adult groups and accounts have different behavioral distributions with non-adult groups and accounts.Then a novel relation-based model, which considers the inter-relationships among groups, individual accounts and message sources, is applied to identify adult accounts.The experimental results show that compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed method can improve the performance of adult account identification on Sina Weibo.Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good.However, some minor issues still need to be improved:(1)The authors should summarize the main contributions of this paper in Section 1.(2)In Section 4.2, the authors mentioned that “A group will attain a value very close to on GACS if all its accounts have entirely copied their own texts, images or contact information”.However, according to Equation 8, contact information is not considered when computing GACS.(3)In Algorithm 1 on Pg.17, it seems that “t=t+1” should be added after line 6.(4)I suggest that the limitation of this work should be discussed in Section 9.(5)There are a few typos and grammar errors in this paper.

第五篇：英文論文審稿意見匯總

英文論文審稿意見匯總

以下12點無輕重主次之分。每一點內容由總結性標題和代表性審稿人意見構成。

1、目標和結果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分。

◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study.◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、對于研究設計的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸張地陳述結論/夸大成果/不嚴謹：

The conclusions are overstated.For example, the study did not show

if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、對hypothesis的清晰界定：

A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、對某個概念或工具使用的rationale/定義概念：

What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

7、對研究問題的定義：

Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear，write one section to define the problem

8、如何凸現原創性以及如何充分地寫literature review:

The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、對claim,如A＞B的證明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、嚴謹度問題：

MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重視程度）：

◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our style.It is close but not completely correct.I have attached a pdf file with “Instructions for Authors” which shows examples.◆ Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted.If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the “Instructions and Forms” button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、語言問題（出現最多的問題）： 有關語言的審稿人意見：

◆ It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.◆ The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission;only then can a proper review be performed.Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆ As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal.There are pro blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission.We str ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i n English or whose native language is English.◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte r of your paper go over the paper and correct it.? ◆ the quality of English needs improving.來自編輯的鼓勵：

Encouragement from reviewers: ◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be en edited because the subject is interesting.◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled “……” which you subm itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part BFirst line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in organic chemistry, but most of organic compounds are not aromatic.-Introduction, line 4: notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, however geometry-based(HOMA), magnetic-based(NICS)and electronic-based(SCI, PDI)methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8.Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006

*****************************************

The Comments by the Second Reviewer

Editor: Michael A.Duncan Reviewer: 67 Manuscript Number: jp067440i Manuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization

Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types Corresponding Author: Yu

Recommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments: Comments on the manuscript “Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types” by Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng Bao Authors propose a restricted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity.The approach is interesting and has certain merits.My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand, mainly because of poor English.A substantial revision in this respect would be beneficiary.各位：

新的惡戰開始了。投往JASA的文章沒有被拒，但被批得很兇。盡管如此，審稿人和編輯 還是給了我們一個修改和再被審的機會。我們應當珍惜這個機會，不急不火。我們首 先要有個修改的指導思想。大家先看看審稿意見吧。

-----郵件原件-----

Manuscript #07-04147:

Editor's Comments:

This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayed above.Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers, each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper.The main points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent across the reviews.Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and the reviews give you many suggestions for doing so.Clearly, the introduction needs to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you propose to answer, and why these questions are important.The rationale for selecting this unusual condition must be clear.Your discussion should focus on how the questions have been answered and what they mean.The results section is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfy the reviewers.The figures and tables could be improved and perhaps consolidated.The methods could be shortened.For example, I think readers would take your word that these were nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other work where they were used.In general, it is unusual to present the first results as late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by the reviewers about the design.The most notable(but not the only problem)is that there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be compared at nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that at least floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely to significantly influence the older/younger comparison.The older listeners are tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance was extremely poor.This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-masker ratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the older listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvaged if you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratio for the older listeners.That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it.I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that it precludes publication of t!he older versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are.Further, after reading the manuscript and the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impression comparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensation levels at which the older and younger groups listened(if the target was fixed at 56 dBA).The Brungart et al.and Rakerd et al.data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners.Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in your lab, and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of data were different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is not varying and there are archival data out there for comparison.As the reviews point out, your conditions present brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target, may change the energetic masking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the same time.Although the temporal distortions did not impair performance substantially in quiet, they may well in noise.Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very different than those when the target is at v!ery low sensation levels in masking.Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedence effect, particularly the perception of “echoes” at the longer delays.Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breaking apart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and Parks(1961).To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions.However, it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.I think there are several options for you to consider:(1)If you think it is very important to publish all the data you have right now, you could withdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.(2)You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision that includes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity of the older/younger comparison.Although this option is open to you, I don't think this is a promising alternative.(3)You could collect more data on older listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better.With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such data were collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, it could be considered a revision of the current manuscript.The revision would be sent back to the reviewers.Of course, I cannot promise in advance that a manuscript even with these new data would be judged favorably by the reviewers.(4)You could drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit a much shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on the noise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking from the data.Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale for what your specific question is about release from masking, why your conditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer.I still worry about how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished.(5)You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider a more straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask with older listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA.I hope the alternatives described will help guide you on how you should proceed from here.Whatever you decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully as they have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improving the presentation.Sincerely yours，Richard L.Freyman

Reviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations:

Reviewer #1(Good Scientific Quality):

No.See attached

Reviewer #1(Appropriate Journal):

Yes

Reviewer #1(Satisfactory English/References):

No.Reviewer #1(Tables/Figures Adequate):

No.Reviewer #1(Concise):

No.Reviewer #1(Appropriate Title and Abstract):

No, because the term “interval-target interval” in the title required further explanation.MS#: 07-04147

Huang et al.“Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informational masking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults.” This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger and older listeners, as a function of inter-target interval(ITI)in two masker conditions(speech masking and noise masker).The same target speech was presented from two different locations simultaneously in two different maskers, one from each location(L or R).Results show that release from informational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners when the ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:

1.Introduction needs to be rewritten:

? The general impression is that the introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy.There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained.? The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping from place to place.For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberation and the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-page to talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.? In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of the study and the core of the issues under investigation.The authors mentioned that “the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech from speech masking or noise masking.” However, they did not explain how and why manipulating ITI can address their questions, questions that were not clearly stated anywhere in the paper.No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation was given regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results in different conditions can answer the questions under investigation.2.Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate and precise:

? Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.? At the beginning of the result section for both the younger and older groups, the authors should clearly present the number of factors included in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor and which ones were within-subject factors.Main effects and interaction(3-way and 2-way)should also be reported clearly.? Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses;however, no pvalue was reported.? The authors should not use the term “marginally significant”.It is either

“significant” or “nonsignificant”.I don't see p=0.084 is “marginally significant.”

? When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference between

the 64 ms ITI and other ITI values? For example, in the statement “...the release

amount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition,...”, do you mean “31.9 percentage points”?

3.Baseline condition is questionable:

? The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results.For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking(on p.19)as

“...the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percent difference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identification at the ITI of 64 ms(the longest ITI in this study).”

? It took me a while to understand what this means, and finally came up with the interpretation(if my interpretation is correct)of the data for the authors.It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms, the perceived spatial location is between the two maskers(spatial separation).But when the ITI was 32 and/or 64 ms, listeners heard two images(one from each side)and there was no spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on either side.Therefore, according to the authors, the release from masking is the performance difference between the ITI conditions when listeners heard only one image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditions where two images from the masker locations were heard.However, I have a problem with the baseline condition(64 ms ITI in which two images were perceived).If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delay(echo)between the two targets? If so, the poor performance in the 64 ms condition can be partially due to the confusion/disruption induced by the echo in noise conditions in addition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and the masker.4.Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:

? The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study and claimed that both groups had “clinically normal hearing.” However, reading the fine details of their hearing thresholds(< 45 dB HL between 125 and 4k Hz), it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normal limits in the older group.There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hz and mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz(see Fig.1)in these subjects.The authors should explain the differences in the results in relation to the threshold differences between the two groups.? The threshold data provided in Fig.1 is average data.It is necessary to provide individual threshold data(at least for the older group)in a table format.5.Language problem:

? I understand that English is not the authors' native language.It is recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading the manuscript before submission.6.Tables and Figures:

? Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presented in Fig.7

? The authors should provide legends in the figures.? The authors should provide error bars in the graphs in Fig 1.? It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig.2

? The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis in Fig.4 to provide better visualization of the data.? Fig.6 should be deleted.Results could be clearly described in the text.Specific comments(this is by no means a complete list):

p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen(1929)is not necessary.p.4 first & second par.The authors provided an exhaustive list of references in various place.I recommend they only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative.p.4 last sentence.“A listener subject to informational masking a target speech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the target speech from those of masking speech.” This sentence is incomprehensible, please rewrite.p.5 first line, first par.“Masking(particularly information masking)of target speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues(perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc)to facilitate his/her selective attention to the target

speech.” References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence.p.5 line 5.“Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevant information..., therefore may cause more speech-recognition difficulties” This sentence is coming out of the blue without further explanation.p.8-10.Please explain the terms “inter-loudspeaker interval”, “inter-masker interval”, “inter-target interval” before using them.p.11 line 11 “Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantly influenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effect of changing the ITI.” This sentence is incomprehensible.p.11 line 2 “The 36 young university students all had normal and balanced....” Change “balance” to “symmetrical.”

p.12 line 8 “Direct English translations of the sentences are similar but not identical to the English nonsense sentences that were developed by Helfer(1997)and also used in studies by Freyman et al.(1999, 2001, 2004)and Li et al.(2004).” I thought the sentences were created by the authors.So, are they a direct translation from the English version or created by the authors?

p.13 last par “For the two-source target presentation,....” This came out of the blue.The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section.Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.p.15 line 8 “During a session, the target-speech sounds were presented at a level such that each loudspeaker, playing alone, would produce a sound pressure of 56 dBA.” Is this the rms level of speech? The level at 56 dBA seems a little low to me.It may sound very soft for the older listeners given that they have mild to moderate hearing loss.Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation level?

p.15 last line “There were 36((17+1)x2)testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32((15+1)x2)testing conditions for older participants.” The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me.Could you explain further in the manuscript?

p.16 line 9 “...participated in additional speech-recognition experiments under the condition without masker presentation.” Where did the target speech come from? Front? Right? Or left? p.17-27.See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under “General comments” point #2.p.23 line 12-13 “A 2(masker type)by 15(ITI)within-subject ANOVA confirms that the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant...” Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the main effects.p.29 line 9 Explain “self-masking” effect.Would the author expect a “self-masking” effect in noise?

p.30 last par first line “Specifically, when the SNR was-4 dB, changing the ITI(absolute value)from 64 to 0 ms led to only a small improvement in target-speech intelligibility, and the improvement was similar between the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition.” The amount of release from masking in the speech masker condition at-4 dB SNR may be limited by the ceiling effect.p.31 line 5 “In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improved speech recognition under both the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition...”

It is hard to tell if there is a significant difference among the ITI conditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect.p.31 line 7 from bottom.“The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in older adults than in younger adults.Thus at long it is(16 ms or 32 ms), cues induced by the integration of leading and lagging target signals were weaker and/or not be well used in older participants.” First, the author should take into account the hearing loss in the older group.Second, this conclusion seems somewhat

contradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived image(s)of the target signal under various ITI conditions.All except for one younger subject perceived two

separate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image.p.32 2nd par.The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on ear channel acoustics came out of nowhere.Reviewer #2 Evaluations:

Reviewer #2(Good Scientific Quality):

Generally yessee general remarks.The referencing is occasionally excessive, e.g.the 17 references provided to back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, or p28 lines 15-16.Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of these long lists of citations(see JASA guidelines).The English is satisfactory, with lots of minor comments(see 'detailed comments' below)

Reviewer #2(Tables/Figures Adequate):

The figures would benefit from being redrawn using appropriate graph-plotting software.In their current form, they are quite pixelated.The figures would benefit from a legend, when there are several symbols used on the same graphs.Figure 2 and Figure 3's x-axes should be suitably non-linear, because the points plotted for ITIs between-10 and 10 ms are illegible.Figure 3 is perhaps largely repeats information that is apparent in Figure 2.Also, the top panel is perhaps misleading, as the difference between the two conditions could be explained to some degree by a ceiling effect.The use of symmetry in Figure 3 should be applied to Figure 2, since we had no reason to expect left-right effects.Tables 1 and 2 should be omitted, since all their information is provided in a Figure.Reviewer #2(Concise):

There seem to be a large number of ANOVAs described in great detail.Perhaps these could be reduced to more essential statistics, or even omitted when the differences are clear from the figures(see 'general remarks' below).Reviewer #2(Appropriate Title and Abstract):

In the title, the term 'inter-target interval' could refer to many things, and it is not immediately obvious from the title that the paper has anything to do with the precedence effect.Reviewer #2(Remarks):

The authors have presented uncorrelated speech or noise maskers from two speakers, and presented the target speech from the same two speakers non-simultaneously, varying the time-interval(the inter-target interval, or ITI)between the two presentations.(1)Young listeners' speech-recognition: Novel differences were mentioned between the design of your experiment and seemingly similar experiments(Rakerd et al.2006;Brungart et al.2005).The discussion section would benefit from a comparison of the results from these experiments.There should be some mention of the general effect of ITI on speech-recognition, and some discussion about its cause and/or implications.(2)Age-related differences in speech-recognition: I was not entirely convinced that the differences could not be adequately explained by a combination of elderly listeners' increased susceptibility to energetic masking, elderly listeners' reduced ability to listen in the dips, and floor/ceiling effects.These simple explanations should receive more emphasis.Once they have been ruled out, more emphasis should be given to the apparent connection between the subjective results and the speech-recognition results(around 32 ms ITI).There should be more discussion about the meaning and importance of this interesting connection, and its implications for elderly listeners, perhaps mentioning auditory scene analysis.It's unfortunate that the elderly listeners were only tested for SNRs at which they had such poor speech recognition.(3)Age-related differences in subjective perception: Elderly listeners had reduced echo-thresholds for speech compared to young listeners.This seems to be a novel result.If this section is to be included, further discussion of relevant literature should be included, and further description of the method used to get these subjective responses.Perhaps this aspect could be published separately as a letter.Age-related differences were described as 'temporal decline'.If this term is to be used, it should perhaps be defined more carefully.Also, does it refer to the age-related differences in dip-listening, age-related differences in subjective perception, the interaction of subjective perception and speech-recognition, or some combination of these? If it is some combination, there should be further argument that the phenomena are related, perhaps incorporating other temporal-decline results from the literature.Overall, there is too much statistics and not enough interpretation of what the results mean.A major re-write is required, focusing on the important results in the Results section, and interpreting them in the Discussion section.-----------------MINOR COMMENTS

Pages 3-4

The second paragraph has somewhat flawed logic(the last sentence does not logically follow from the preceding sentences)and the conclusion isn't particularly relevant to the rest of the paper.It could be omitted.Page 11, lines 14-15: You describe the elderly listeners' audiograms as 'clinically normal'(also in the abstract)yet above, you suggest that some of them have 45 dB HL hearing losses for some pure tones.You might want to specify the definition of normal-hearing that you are using.I would agree with you(especially given their mean audiogram in Figure 1)that they are in the early stages of presbycusis, rather than normal-hearing.Describing them as simply 'normal-hearing' is perhaps misleading.Some indication of the range of the audiograms would be useful.Page 12, line 11.It might be helpful to include an example sentence and its translation, to save the reader referring back to the cited papers.Page 13, lines 7-14.-log(1/f)is the same as log(f);and the sum of log(f)is equal to log(the product of f).Thus you have balanced the product of the word frequencies.This seems an unusual measure: one nonsense word of frequency = 0 would not make the whole list unintelligible.Perhaps there are more meaningful comparisons of the distribution of word frequencies within a list, or perhaps that would be too much detail.It would suffice to say that the words were distributed pseudorandomly.Page 13, lines 20-21.Why was the 0.5-ms ITI not used for elderly listeners?

Page 14.A short summary of the conditions would be useful, for ease of reference.Page 15, lines 1-5: When the sentences were mixed, were their onsets simultaneous or randomised? Also, if there was no processing other than addition(e.g.phase-randomisation)would it not be better to refer to the masker as speech babble throughout, rather than noise?

Page 16, line 13: Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that participants were(say)given two options(broad or compact);or, if the participants were free to describe the stimulus in any terms, some description of the experimenter's process of interpretation should be mentioned.Pages 17-27: There are a large number of interactions mentioned.Not all of them have any influence on the discussion or conclusions.In fact, in many instances, there are no post hoc analyses to find the source of the interaction, nor descriptions of the effects.Not all interactions are interesting.Some may disappear under appropriate transformations;we wouldn't always expect linear effects with percent-correct recognition.However, some of the interactions you describe seem interesting.Comparing the middle-left, middle-right and bottom-left panels of Figure 2, or the two panels of Figure 4, leave me in no doubt that you have genuinely observed more release from speech maskers than noise maskers.More emphasis should be placed on describing these interesting interactions, and less emphasis should be placed on the raw statistics.Also the results section should be generally shortened, omitting statistics when the results are obvious from the figures.Example candidates for omission are:

-p17 last lineit didn't decrease at all for the older participants;also 'faster' is perhaps not the appropriate word in this context.Page 28, paragraph 1: The raised thresholds observed for elderly listeners is not a novel result, and perhaps the previous research showing this should be referenced.Page 28, line 22: 'Wingfield' rather than 'Wingfiled'.Page 29, line 19: 'fuses with' not 'fuse withs' Page 30, line 2: 'and' rather than 'and and' Page 30, line 6: 'maskers' not 'makers'

Page 30, line 5: '...fused;they...' or '...fused, but they...' rather than '...fused, they...'.The following point from 'co-variations' could perhaps be made more clearly.Page 30, line 16: 'sufficiently' rather than 'sufficient' Page 30, line 16: 'ITI-induced' rather than 'ITI-induce'.Page 32, line 16: '...manipulations, as long as they help...' Page 33, line 1: 'loudspeakers' rather than 'loudspeaker'.Page 33, line 3: 'one or more' rather than 'one or some'

Page 33, lines 9-10: 'several papers have failed to find any age-related effects...' rather than 'there are no age-related effects on the precedence effect'.Page 33, line 13: 'ITI-induced' rather than 'ITI0induced'.Page 34, line 1: 'became 8 ms or short' should be 'was 8 ms or shorter'.Page 34, line 5: 'masker' not 'maker'

Page 34, line 15: which condition is the 'non-reverberant condition'? Keep the terminology consistent to the rest of the document.(The same applies to the rest of the summary)

Page 37: Appendix 1 should be omitted, unless the spectral differences are described and interpreted.Page 37, line 8: 'sound-progressed software'? Page 37, line 10: 'spectral' rather than 'spectrum' Page 38: Appendix 2 could be omitted

Reviewer #3 Evaluations:

Reviewer #3(Good Scientific Quality):

The paper is vague and needs reworking to make clear the goals and hypotheses driving the work and the interpretation of the results.Reviewer #3(Appropriate Journal):

Yes.Reviewer #3(Satisfactory English/References):

The English is alright, but there are many typos and grammatical errors.Reviewer #3(Tables/Figures Adequate):

Yes.Reviewer #3(Concise):

No.The introduction is long and unfocused.Reviewer #3(Appropriate Title and Abstract):

The results do not tease apart informational vs.energetic masking contributions.In meaning of “inter-target interval” is not descriptive enough to be meaningful until after reading the methods.Reviewer #3(Remarks):

This paper presents results of an experiment conducted in young and older listeners listening to target speech embedded in competing signals.The experiment uses a complex set-up, including two competing maskers from different(symmetrically positioned)locations and a target that is played from both speakers while varying the timing of the target signals from the two speakers.The authors spend a *lot* of time trying to relate this set up to the precedence effect and difficulties of understanding speech in a room, fusion of a leading and a lagging sound, and temporal processing.The introduction is, indeed, long and hard to follow.It is not clear where the argument is going, or how the reviewed material influenced the design of the current experiments, let alone what the current experiment is trying to test.While all of the issues raised in the introduction undoubtedly contribute to the results obtained in the experiment, none of these ideas is explored fully enough to understand how or why they may be important in the current setup.What is the goal of the experiment? Why use this complex setup? What are the hypotheses for what will happen as a function of inter-target delay? For aging listeners? None of this is clear in the current presentation.Off the top of my head, here is a list of examples of the kinds of things that are very troubling in the manuscript:

There are never any clearly stated hypotheses for what should happen in the different settings, or why.There is no discussion or interpretation of the results that lends insight into what processes are contributing to the observed effects.The influences of energetic masking are not discussed and the results confound release from energetic and informational masking.While the overall long-term spectral average of the speech is shown to change only by a limited amount with inter-target delay, there is no discussion of what happens in the modulation domain(which, arguably, is the most relevant domain for speech understanding).There is no discussion of how envelope cues are affected, or what this could do to INTELLIGIBILITY as well as SEGREGATION of the sources.The single-source control(dashed line in the main figures)is not an adequate control for energetic or informational masking in the two-masker conditions, and thus is essentially useless.The older listeners perform worse overall than any of the younger listeners, and thus, there is no point in the direct comparisons that are made between younger and older listeners.Nothing can really be concluded about why the older listeners do poorly, since they are worse than any of the control groups.The fact that the change in performance with inter-target delay is smaller for the older listners is meaningless, since this may be a floor effect.Similarly, the fact that changes in performance with inter-target delay are smaller in the younger listener group with the best signal-to-noise ratio than for the other groups is likely due to ceiling effects--there is no reason to expect equal changes at all performance levels(psychometric functions are sigmoidal, in general, not linear).This same problem makes the target-only control experiment particularly pointless.Given that all of the results are taken at different points on the psychometric functions and that the psychometric functions are nonlinear, the ANOVA analyses presented seem pointless to this reviewer--they compare apples and oranes.Moreover, the statistical analyses are presented **instead of** any description of what is happening and what it might mean.I would rather have some help understanding what you expected to see and why instead of a lot of statistical analyses that don't lend any insight into what was found.Throughout the manuscript, there is no attempt to determine what is due to energetic and what is due to informational masking.The noise control condition probably *only* gives energetic masking, but the amount of energetic masking it produces is different from that of the the other speech conditions.Thus, there is no way to conclude anything about how IM and EM contribute in the speech conditions as a function of inter-target delay, or what the inter-target delay is really doing.The experiment in which listeners were asked to judge the spatial quality of the different conditions might have been important in helping to interpret what was happening, but was never developed.What is shown is actually quite confusing.The older listeners may have a slightly different pattern of spatial perception as a function of inter-target delay, but this is never fully explored.No hypotheses are given to describe how these differences are likely to impact speech understanding in the speech intelligibility task.IF the results are reliable and repeatable enough to be meaningful(which is suspect, given the small number of subjects), what do you expect to happen for older listeners for whom the sounds are MORE DIFFUSE AT ZERO DELAY than for younger listeners? Wouldn't that suggest that they should have more difficulty in understanding the target compared to young listeners at these short delays? But they are like the younger listeners at the longest delays, hearing two targets.Is that good or bad? If hearing two separate targets(at the locations of the maskers)is expected to make the task harder, why aren't the older listeners BETTER than the younger listeners at the delays of 16 and 32? There is no discussion of these points to help interpret any of this.The paper ends with conclusions that are not linked to any of the results shown.How can one assert that the “listeners perceive two spatially separated images of the target and can selectively focus their attention to only one of the images(usually the leading one)”(p.29)from the data presented? This one sentence contains so many assumptions, it is indefensible.All that was measured is intelligibility.On p.31, the authors write “The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound(sic)in older adults than in younger adults.” The only thing that is shown is that the older listeners have more difficulty in general, are near the performance floor, and show less dependence on the inter-target delay.There are too many leaps to go from this to asserting that there are differences in “temporal storage of the fine details.”

There are numerous typos(names misspelled, grammar issues)throughout;however, the manuscript needs to be completely rewritten before it is in an acceptable form for JASA, so I will not comment on that here.In summary, while the results might be of interest if presented in a more accessible way, with clearer justification for the experimental design and explicit hypotheses for what should happen in the different conditions, this could be salvaged into an acceptable paper.In its current form, it is not appropriate for JASA.