| 查看: 616 | 回复: 1 | ||
ouxueling新虫 (初入文坛)
|
[求助]
请大家帮忙看看审稿人意见 已有1人参与
|
|
大家好，本人两月前投稿Scientific Reports，虽然使用的是未报到过的新方法，但因为做的案例比较少（才7个家系，但已经用了10几万了），因此也不敢投太好的杂志，先投Scientific Reports试试。前天收到Decision Letter，是Major Revison。但看了一下Reviewer #1的意见，他明显也是觉得样品量小。但我有点看不太明白，他的意思是让我扩大样品量再投稿呢，还是说在未来进一步的研究中要增加样品量来验证这个方法的准确性呢？扩大样品量再投是不可能的了，经费已经没剩多少了，况且只有四周的修回时间。大家帮我看看，审稿人到底是什么意思？要补做实验吗？如果我确实不想补做的话，我该如何回答审稿人的意见？ Reviewer #1 (Technical Comments to the Author): Additional experiments and data are definitely needed to support conclusions drawn from this study. All findings need to reflect the limitation of the small sample size, which currently it does not. With such a small sample size, the scale of this study needs to be amplified in order to get a clearer picture of the test’s validity and reliability. Also, as the authors noted, further analysis must be conducted to assess if early gestation samples would provide sufficient cfDNA samples to yield results distinguishable from sequencing noise. This is a major issue for the feasibility of using this testing technology. Therefore, further research must be conducted to test the solutions to this problem that the authors proposed. Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Besides a couple of minor syntactic errors, this article is very well written. The authors clearly present background information pertaining to the current state of paternity testing and prenatal testing technology, and then present a compelling case for the implementation of their non-invasive paternity testing. However, the small sample size is very concerning. This could be a pilot study at best, and much more work needs to be done before any conclusions may be drawn. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
不自信的我
已经有11人回复
-
北核录用
已经有3人回复
-
要不要辞职读博？
已经有6人回复
-
实验室接单子
已经有3人回复
-
磺酰氟产物，毕不了业了！
已经有8人回复
-
求助:我三月中下旬出站，青基依托单位怎么办？
已经有10人回复
-
26申博（荧光探针方向，有机合成）
已经有4人回复
-
论文终于录用啦！满足毕业条件了
已经有26人回复
-
2026年机械制造与材料应用国际会议 （ICMMMA 2026）
已经有4人回复
-
Cas 72-43-5需要30g，定制合成，能接单的留言
已经有8人回复
2楼2016-09-30 20:28:24