眼看要毕业了，希望这篇文章能中！找工作也多一些筹码！
两个审稿人的意见我觉得都很正面，给我感觉应该是小修，不知道编辑为什么给了一个大修。
编辑的回复大概是：
The reviewers consider that the paper warrants publication, but they have a number of concerns or comments that should be addressed before it can be accepted. In particular, there is concern regarding the statistical methods used to analyze the data and these should be fully dealt with. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.
两个审稿人
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The manuscript describes an experiment with saline versus control treatment of ＋＋＋ with or without inoculation of growth promoting bacteria. The experiment is well-conducted, showing some interesting results on physiological parameters and the manuscript is well-written.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The study of increasing ＋＋＋ tolerance in halophytes using PGPB and the mechanisms involved is of great importance. Nevertheless, I have some major concerns regarding the experimental design, statistical analyses and the discussion of results:
省略了逐条的意见。
文章中确实有个问题，我忽视了，现在也没法再补救了。但是我看师姐投的一个TOP期刊的文章也有这个问题，不知道审稿人能不能网开一面。还有我个人觉得第二个审稿人水平不高，数据分析中提的意见根本就不对。总知，已经尽力修改了，感觉希望还是很大的，但是还是很纠结啊！期待圣诞前能有好消息！！！ 返回小木虫查看更多