24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (1031)
>导师招生 (728)
>虫友互识 (279)
>休闲灌水 (263)
>招聘信息布告栏 (123)
>博后之家 (67)
>论文投稿 (35)
>教师之家 (29)
>硕博家园 (29)
>考研 (22)
>公派出国 (15)
>学术会议 (13)
>考博 (12)
>生物科学 (10)
>基金申请 (8)
>分子生物 (5)

返回列表

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

Mr.yang11

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 464
散金: 2754
红花: 8
沙发: 1
帖子: 542
在线: 213.6小时
虫号: 4263963
注册: 2015-12-03
性别: GG
专业: 模式识别

[交流] 两个审稿人，一个大修一个拒稿很尖锐，编辑让我大修，拒稿的问题很难回答。已有8人参与

投的是SR （Scientific Reports），可能很多同志都看不上，主要是本人小硕实力有限，实验室投SCI的也很少，没有这个环境。

下面说正事
文章是2017.4.16投的，质量检查到2017.5.5终于算是完成，投稿成功。
2017.5.15分配到编辑手里，2017.6.20开始Decision Started，2017.6.30收到修改邮件，下面是邮件的一些具体情况：

Your manuscript entitled "XXXXX" has now been reviewed and the reviewer comments are appended below. You will see that, while they find your work of interest, they have raised points that need to be addressed by a major revision. Please try to address critical comments from both reviewers, especially reviewer 3.

Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Is the manuscript technically sound?: N/A
Could the manuscript become technically sound with revision?: Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?: N/A
Are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions?: Yes
Does the manuscript only duplicate previous work?: No
Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties?: Yes
References: appropriate credit given to previous work?: No
Is the manuscript written clearly using Standard English?: No
Images (including electrophoretic gels and blots) are free from apparent manipulation?: N/A

Recommendation: Major Revision
然后提了一些具体的建议，主要就是这个方法改进在哪里，优点是什么要详细的说，下面是第二个审稿人；

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Is the manuscript technically sound?: No
Could the manuscript become technically sound with revision?: No
Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?: No
Are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions?: N/A
Does the manuscript only duplicate previous work?: N/A
Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties?: N/A
References: appropriate credit given to previous work?: Yes
Is the manuscript written clearly using Standard English?: No
Images (including electrophoretic gels and blots) are free from apparent manipulation?: Yes

Recommendation: Reject
最主要的是他的意见很难回答

This manuscript is not written as a paper but a homework exercise. They only list some trivial facts (conlusions) but no detailed interpretation and comparison with the results given in the literature. So we can not learn their contributions to this field and why their method works. Some interpretations of their figures do not support their conclusions, see Figure 3 and Figure 5 for example.

看到说我的论文不像论文而像家庭作业那边我就已经懵了