µ±Ç°Î»Ö㺠Ê×Ò³ > ΢ÉúÎï >Çë½ÌÕâ¸öËãÊÇ´óÐÞ»¹ÊÇСÐÞ£¿

Çë½ÌÕâ¸öËãÊÇ´óÐÞ»¹ÊÇСÐÞ£¿

×÷Õß eagles123
À´Ô´: Сľ³æ 300 6 ¾Ù±¨Ìû×Ó
+¹Ø×¢

²©Ê¿µÄµÚһƪÎÄÕÂͶµ½ISME J Éó¸å2Ôºó¸ørevision¡£3¸öÉó¸åÈË Á½¸öÆÀ¼Û±È½ÏºÃ »¹ÓиöûÆÀ¼ÛºÃ»µ Ö»ÌáÁ˼¸¸öÎÊÌâ¡£  ±à¼­»ØÐÅÈçÏ£¬ÇëÎʸ÷λÕâ¸öËãÊÇminor »¹ÊÇ major revision?  Ð»Ð»¸÷λ


Thank you for submitting your manuscript to The ISME Journal. Your manuscript was reviewed by several experts in the field; and we are enclosing the comments they have made. As you can see, the reviewers think that the work is of potential interest; however, significant concerns have also been voiced, which would preclude publication of the paper in its present form.

We are willing to consider a revised version of the manuscript providing that you satisfy the criticisms raised in the attached comments by the reviewers and/or the Editors. The manuscript requires a thorough revision and as you can see from the comments that most points raised are straight forward to consider. I would agree with referees #1 and #3 that you need to make the effort to better explain the methods and reasoning behind your experimental/cultivation design and consider related studies. Please also comment on the origin of the strain.
Generally, a revised manuscript should be re-submitted within 1 month. Additional time for revision may be granted to the authors upon request. Please inform the editorial office immediately if you anticipate need for such an extension. ·µ»ØСľ³æ²é¿´¸ü¶à

½ñÈÕÈÈÌû
  • ¾«»ªÆÀÂÛ
  • kydarling

    ° a thorough revision¡± ´ÓÕâÀï¿´ÄãÓ¦¸ÃÊÇ´óÐÞ¡£

    ÁíÍâISME JÉ϶ÔÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒªÇó¿ÉÒÔ¿´³ö
    Manuscripts that are sent for formal review typically go to multiple referees. Based on their advice, the editor decides to:
    1¡¢accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision
    2¡¢invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
    3¡¢reject the manuscript, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

    Ã÷ÏԱ༭»Ø¸´ÖÐÌáµ½We are willing to consider a revised version of the manuscript providing that you satisfy the criticisms raised in the attached comments by the reviewers and/or the Editors.  ËùÒÔ¾ÍÊǶÔÓ¦µÚ¶þÌõ´óÐÞ ¶ø·ÇµÚÒ»ÌõСÐÞ¡£µ«ÊÇ´óÐÞ1¸öÔÂʱ¼äÉÏÓеã¶Ì£¬²»²¹³ä´óʵÑéµÄ»°£¬µ¹Ò²»¹¿ÉÒÔ¡£¼ÓÓÍ£¬×£Äã³É¹¦£¬

  • aardwolf1986

    ´óÐÞ£¬²»¹ý²»¹Ü´óÐÞСÐÞ¶¼ÒªÈÏÕæÐ޸ġ£Ò»°ã¶¼²»»áÓÐÎÊÌâµÄ¡£

  • nono2009

    ´óÐÞÐ޸ĵúã¬Â¼ÓÿÉÄÜÐԺܸߣ»Ð¡ÐÞÐ޸ĵò»µ½Î»£¬Ò²»á±»¾Ü¡£ËùÒԺúÃÐÞ¸ÄÊǸù±¾

  • zhoupeng87

    °´ÕÕËûµÄÒâ˼Ӧ¸ÃÊÇ´óÐÞ

  • zjy_2013

    ˵ÉÏÈ¥ÊÇ´óÐÞ£¬µ«Ëã²»ÉÏ´óÐÞ£¬´óÐÞreviseµÄʱ¼ä¶ÎÓ¦¸ÃÊÇ2-3¸öÔ£¬µ«ÊÇÂ¥Ö÷µÄÖ»ÊÇÒ»¸öÔ£¬ÈÏÕæÐÞ¸ÄÏàÐÅÒ»¶¨ÊǺõĽá¹û

²ÂÄãϲ»¶
ÏÂÔØСľ³æAPP
Óë700Íò¿ÆÑдïÈËËæʱ½»Á÷
  • ¶þάÂë
  • IOS
  • °²×¿