前些日子投稿Biosensors and bioelectronics，现在审稿意见回来了，三个审稿人，其中前两个给的是评价很高，说论文的创新性很高，然后提了些改进的问题，第三个审稿人直接给据了，然后乱提了一些意见，最后编辑给的是要大修。那我认真修改后接受的可能性大吗？其中编辑给的意见我有点不是和明白
Editors' report:

Please take the point(s) with "X" below into consideration when revising your manuscript.

1. Review Articles should present a thorough and comprehensive overview of the chosen subject and be extensively referenced and comprise around 8000 words. Authors are expected to go beyond a simple compilation of references and analyse trends, shortcomings and accomplishments in their chosen field, charting possible future directions of the research. Illustrations and summary tables are encouraged. Flexibility of presentation is permitted, but authors are urged to arrange the subject matter clearly under the general headings of Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Main text (The heading and the sub-headings of the main text are left to author's discretion), Summary and Conclusions, Future Perspectives, Acknowledgements, References.

x 2. Full papers should be complete descriptions of full investigations comprising around 5000 words with up to 6 single figures/tables/schemes in total, but your manuscript comprises too many figures/tables/schemes. You could use the supplemental information feature for extra figures/tables/schemes. Supplementary files supplied will be published online alongside the electronic version of your article in Elsevier Science web products, but will not appear in the printed issue. You can find the details at https://ees.elsevier.com/bios/

3. We would consider your revised manuscript for publication as a Short Communication. It should be complete descriptions of original limited investigations comprising around 3000 words with up to three single figures/tables/schemes. Alternatively, you could use the supplemental information feature for extra figures/tables/schemes. Supplementary files supplied will be published online alongside the electronic version of your article in Elsevier Science web products, but will not appear in the printed issue. You can find the details at https://ees.elsevier.com/bios/

4. Most referees still prefer to read hard copy when they review your manuscript. In order to aid referees in printing you are strongly recommended to make your manuscript text compact and to check that it will print out in a convenient format.
这里就第二条前面有x ，但是第三条说是建议以Short Communication的形式发表，那我是这些所有的意见都修改还是只考虑带x的第二条？纠结中，要不要改成Short Communication，恳请各位遇到过这种情况的大神给出宝贵建议啊！！！ 返回小木虫查看更多