| 查看: 663 | 回复: 2 | |||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者zsyyasff将赠送您 5 个金币 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[求助]
一个期刊审稿1个半月，给出大修意见，求大神帮忙分析一下审稿意见
|
|||
|
Dear ***, Thank you for sending your above mentioned manuscript for consideration Your paper has been thoroughly reviewed. To my regret I must inform you that it is not suitable for publication in *** under its present form. If you are willing, however, to address the comments of our reviewers, which I enclose, I will be glad to reconsider this decision after a new peer review. Please highlight in light gray all the passages that you have altered. Furthermore we ask you to submit your answers to all the questions of the reviewers and the editors when you submit the revised manuscript. This facilitates the review, which is to your advantage. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Dear authors Thank you for your interesting manuscript. The methodology you used is very interesting and precise. Your results are in relation with the searching methods and the factors you decided to evaluate. Nevertheless when you want to compare 2 controversial treatment methods it seems mandatory to speak and identify predictor's factors of the disease and the patients to help the discussion.。。。。。 Reviewer #2:This manuscript describes a meta-analysis of*****。 **** studies were assessed for eligibility. The paper is compact and well written. The methods used in this study are appropriate and the conclusions are generally in lining with the results. However, the main perspective aired in this paper is not so innovative. Besides, I have the following comments. Reviewer #3: 1)Nice and interesting paper, scientific method of review is clearly illustrated 2)Please clarify and if possible analyze the surgical technique 3) If possible to know something more about comorbidities 编辑的这句话To my regret I must inform you that it is not suitable for publication in *** under its present form. If you are willing, however, to address the comments of our reviewers, which I enclose, I will be glad to reconsider this decision after a new peer review. 我怎么觉得编辑这个意思不太好，求大神帮忙分析一下审稿意见，文章有希望么 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
085600材料与化工 求调剂
已经有16人回复
-
317求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
304求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
085700资源与环境308求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
279分求调剂 一志愿211
已经有3人回复
-
求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
一志愿吉林大学材料学硕321求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
286分人工智能专业请求调剂愿意跨考！
已经有3人回复
-
329求调剂
已经有5人回复
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
3楼2017-04-17 14:07:40
eiri
新虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 84 (初中生)
- 金币: 7615.3
- 散金: 3915
- 红花: 85
- 帖子: 8708
- 在线: 436.1小时
- 虫号: 4209911
- 注册: 2015-11-10
- 专业: 微观经济学
2楼2017-04-17 13:30:29
