24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 2596  |  回复: 25
当前主题已经存档。
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

ljl1205

木虫 (著名写手)

[交流] 大家把收到的审稿意见都发上来吧

大家把收到的审稿意见都发上来吧,晒晒看看审稿人的评价,有没有最好的评语,让俺等瞻仰一下
回复此楼

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

论文投稿

» 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

wangwei2008

木虫 (职业作家)

小木虫之移花宫主

★ ★ ★ ★ ★
ljl1205(金币+5,VIP+0): 9-9 22:31
Reviewer #2: This paper reported the isolation and preliminary characterization of a *****that showed ******************.While the**are of value both as *********for improvement of ***************and as potential new *, there are some major concerns about the completeness and quality of the experiment, as well as the organization and English of the paper.
1. The introduction is very detailed on somaclonal variation, some of them are not necessary. For example,Paragraph 3 and 4 can be replaced by citing two or three relevant review papers
2. There are a number of publications documenting the genetic basis of ***************and more recently, the cloning of these genes, they should be part of the introduction and discussed against the result of this study in the Discussion. The lack of any genetic characterization of the induced resistance is the major shortfall of this research. If there is any data, it would be very helpful.
3. The yield performance of Tables 1, 2, 3 might be presented in a single figure, while other data, for example, *****might be given in the context (since more comprehensive data are given in table 4). *******with stdev would be sufficient for the Table 3.
4. For table 4, the presentation of data  for************ is different from mutants, the actual meaning should be explained.
5. In the Discussion, the last sentence of Paragraph 1 seems to be contradictory to the numerious successful examples given in Paragraph 2.
6. Also in the Discussion, Paragraph 4, it  stated that "************************************** .  This is indeed not true; the frequency is already extremely high to have*********from *considering no screening was done during**********. Therefore, the reasons for such a high ******** frequency should be discussed. Additionally, the possible underlining mechanism of the non-segregation**and ***** such as maturity and plant ******** which is extremely unusual, should be discussed.
7. Also in the Discussion, Paragraph 5 seems not very relevant and can be deleted.
8. Overall, the English needs a thorough revsion.
6楼2009-09-09 22:23:26
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 26 个回答

ljl1205

木虫 (著名写手)

80个金币,打造牛人的审稿意见汇合
2楼2009-09-09 21:47:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

goodtimega

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

This manuscript has two major parts. The one is correct is not innovative, and the one is innovative is not correct. Therefore, I would suggest the authors retake quantum chemistry courses and then consider submitting to this type of prestigious journal.
3楼2009-09-09 21:58:28
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bjlumang

铁杆木虫 (知名作家)

COMMENTS FROM EDITORS AND REVIEWERS

Reviewer #1: It is a well written paper with a clear objective and well designed experiments. The findings are a relevant contribution in the field of engineered bioremediation.
However, a few minor  issues should be addressed:

Reviewer #2: This is a good work to combine the bioslurry and two-liquid-phase systems in order to biological degrade persistant contaminants. It contains a variety of chemical and biochemical analysis in order to evaluate the performance of system. However, as I read the manuscript, I theink it need a minor revision about following comments:
4楼2009-09-09 22:18:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见