| 查看: 3021 | 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
filecode
已经有3人回复
-
我的国基提前知道中了，可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了，怎么会有这样的人
已经有10人回复
-
静等基金结果
已经有13人回复
-
关于Filecode分析方法
已经有3人回复
-
国自然结果
已经有8人回复
-
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有8人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有22人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有4人回复
-
8月时间戳变的，举个手。玩一下，释放压力
已经有13人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有5人回复
wangwei2008
木虫 (职业作家)
小木虫之移花宫主
- 应助: 6 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4264.6
- 散金: 1
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 4265
- 在线: 152.7小时
- 虫号: 495631
- 注册: 2008-01-15
- 专业: 植物生理与生化
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
ljl1205(金币+5,VIP+0): 9-9 22:31
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
ljl1205
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 0.118
- 金币: 3602.5
- 散金: 2948
- 红花: 22
- 帖子: 1305
- 在线: 1822.8小时
- 虫号: 353140
- 注册: 2007-04-23
- 专业: 控制理论与方法
2楼2009-09-09 21:47:42
goodtimega
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 8138.7
- 散金: 570
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 1489
- 在线: 527.5小时
- 虫号: 820248
- 注册: 2009-08-02
- 专业: 高分子材料结构与性能
3楼2009-09-09 21:58:28
bjlumang
铁杆木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 25 (小学生)
- 金币: 9225.9
- 散金: 56
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 7788
- 在线: 640.1小时
- 虫号: 149938
- 注册: 2005-12-29
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 化工热力学和基础数据
|
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
100