24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1590  |  回复: 4
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者医学僧僧将赠送您 100 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

医学僧僧

新虫 (小有名气)

[求助] 投稿BMC,两个月后被拒,重投还有机会吗? 已有1人参与

七月底投的BMC infectious diseases,一周后回信说有重复,建议修改后重投,8月14重投,8.27送审,今天收到被拒的稿件,第一个编辑拒的很干脆,提出的问题也很专业,第二个编辑认为还可以,需要修一修,主编直接给的拒绝,各位大神看看,改一改重投还有机会不?附部分原文
Dear Professor Zhao,

Thank you for considering BMC Infectious Diseases for your manuscript.Peer review of your manuscript is now complete and, based on the reports, I am sorry to say that we cannot consider the manuscript for publication and are closing your file.

The reviewers' reports are included at the end of this email. Please note that as BMC Infectious Diseases has a policy of open peer review, you will be able to see the names of the reviewers.
I wish you every success with your research and hope that you will consider us again in the future.

Best wishes,

Mar Masiá, MD, PhD
BMC Infectious Diseases
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/
Editor Comments:
Reviewer reports:
Jesús Bermejo-Martín (Reviewer 1): This paper present a combined score formed by A,B and C to improve mortality prediction . This work present major flaws and defects in the design.

- Relative novelty: The paper shows a very similar approach to that already published in PMID: 28958655, By the way, this paper is not cited iby the authors.?
- A is a biomarker denoting severity in those infections of bacterial origin. The authors do not present any data on the bacterial or viral
By the way, this paper is not cited iby the authors.?
In definitive, The authors should address this drawback in the future.?

Minor comments:
Further details on how the authors constructed the combined scores should be provided in the methodology.

Ito Akihiro (Reviewer 2): Reviewer comments
I think that this study is interesting and significant, however, I think that there are some important points to be revised.

发自小木虫IOS客户端
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bobvan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
“第一个编辑拒的很干脆,提出的问题也很专业”是审稿人不是编辑,编辑是最后作决定的人。
从 Decision letter 看不出编辑鼓励你重投 (可能主要是因为你的研究的新颖性不够高),新颖性这个东西很难改变,除非你能说服审稿人,说明你的研究同别人的研究有本质的不同,然后要求编辑给你重投机
4楼2019-09-30 13:00:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 5 个回答

fqcgfqcgfqcg

木虫 (文坛精英)

2楼2019-09-30 09:41:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
3楼2019-09-30 10:15:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

医学僧僧

新虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by bobvan at 2019-09-30 13:00:51
“第一个编辑拒的很干脆,提出的问题也很专业”是审稿人不是编辑,编辑是最后作决定的人。
从 Decision letter 看不出编辑鼓励你重投 (可能主要是因为你的研究的新颖性不够高),新颖性这个东西很难改变,除非你能 ...

好的,谢谢,准备好好修改以后重新投杂志了

发自小木虫IOS客户端
5楼2019-10-02 14:55:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
信息提示
请填处理意见