24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 syp719 的 9 个金币

syp719

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 3277.5
散金: 736
红花: 6
帖子: 615
在线: 182.8小时
虫号: 1110236
注册: 2010-09-28
性别: MM
专业: 经济林学

[交流] 审稿后主编意见是Reject & Resubmit ，谁帮我看看这意见修改后有必要重投吗

EIC scores: REWRITE AND RE-SUBMIT
Page 1
Line 44: 10 quotes collected cultivars, but names only 9. If we compare with the cultivars described in Table 1, is missing Zha71.
page 2
Lines 12 and 13: external standard for a method by gas chromatography is not recommended, because the error is too large. It is preferred internal standardization. Furthermore, no mention reference method of analysis and it was not validated. I could have used a recognized compendial method, as it did in the following paragraph, using methods of AOAC. So, author must focus in the results and claims for its validity.
Lines 41 and 42: also does not talk if the methods by ICP-AES have been validated.
page 3 - same as prior comment.
Lines 12 and 13: "The results of this study are in agreement with previous studies que have shown the kernel percentage of Chinese walnut cultivars to be between 51% and 70%": then why do the research if it has been researched and proven this percentage in previous studies? You must indicate WHY it is important, not just state it.
Table 1: alphabetize. As Hartley cultivar is used for comparison, it should be highlighted
Table 2: badly formatted, making it difficult to read and interpret the results.
Table 3: idem Table 2
Table 4: idem table 1
Abstract: do not talk at any time what the purpose of comparing the nuts with a nut Chinese American Hartley. I think You should mention the importance to health of these high nutritional indices of Chinese nuts when compared to the American nut. The abstract presents many results but without showing the relevance of them.
Entire Scoresheet:
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: Accept
Comments:
(There are no comments.)
Additional Questions:
Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?: Yes
Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?: Yes
Is the problem significant and concisely stated?: Yes
Are the methods described comprehensively?: Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?: Yes
Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?: Yes
Length of article is: Adequate
Number of tables is: Adequate
Number of figures is: Adequate
Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this paper (state “none” if this is not applicable).: no
Rating:
Interest: 2. Good
Quality: 2. Good
Originality: 3. Average
Overall: 2. Good
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Reject
Comments:
(There are no comments.)
Additional Questions:
Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?: No
Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?: No
Is the problem significant and concisely stated?: No
Are the methods described comprehensively?: Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?: Yes
Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?: Yes
Length of article is: Adequate
Number of tables is: Too many
Number of figures is: Too few
Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this paper (state “none” if this is not applicable).: none
Rating:
Interest: 3. Average
Quality: 3. Average
Originality: 3. Average
Overall: 3. Average

回复此楼