投了一个月，送审以后，一个大修，一个拒稿，编辑给了拒稿重投。但是第二个审稿人说话好tough啊。。。大神们求助，这种情况，还要不要再重投试试看啊。。。。
RSC Advances, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below.

After careful evaluation of the manuscript and reviewers’ comments, I regret to inform you that I do not find your manuscript suitable for publication and therefore it has been rejected in its current form.

However, if you are able to fully address the concerns raised by the reviewers in the reports below, I will consider a substantially rewritten manuscript which takes into account all of the reviewers’ comments. If you choose to resubmit your manuscript, please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made.
REVIEWER REPORT(S):
Referee: 1

Recommendation: Major revisions

Comments:
In this work, the authors have prepared micro-patterns on PDMS and studied the effect of bacterial cell adhesion. With the growing interest in preparing surfaces with patterns/ topography to prepare anti-bacterial surfaces this is an important area of work. The results are interesting but there are a number of concerns that must be addressed before this work may be considered for publication-
1. A number of studies have been reported in this area of work in recent years, so the novelty of these features/ uniqueness of this work is unclear
2. The motivation for the choice of these features and their size ranges is not explained in the Introduction. It is partly discussed in the Discussion where how the feature sizes scale with bacterial sizes is discussed to explain the rationale. The Introduction section should be modified to incorporate the motivation more clearly.
3. Similar to comment 1 above, the discussion section should include how these results support or contradict the literature since many such studies have been reported.
4. Minor comment- In Fug 2, the y-axis may be expanded in the 0 to 15% range with a break to accommodate the control if needed to clearly present the results of the patterned surfaces which are barely visible now.
5. The authors are advised to take help from a native speaker to correct the grammatical errors in the text.


Referee: 2

Recommendation: Reject

Comments:
In this article author fabricated 3 different micro-patterned polydimethylsiloxane films with various pattern sizes from 0.5 μm to 4μm to study the effect of micro-patterned on the bacterial adhesion. Several similar studies already reported in the literatures.

From this study authors have drawn very general conclusion that the micro-pattern topography could reduce the attachment of these 3 strains. The difference between the pattern size and the bacteria size was crucial to the amount of bacteria adhered on the surfaces for different strains. This general knowledge already reported in several literatures. The present study and result is just a repeated experiment of what already published by several authors. This study does not provide any additional scientific knowledge what already known in the scientific community.

Authors used three different micro-patterned namely square, ridges and four-way grids. Authors did not explain the basis and rational of this particular design of this study. Authors should think critically on novelty and expected outcome of their work before designing and performing this experiment. Author should judge the scientific merit of their paper before sending for publication to any journal.


 返回小木虫查看更多