| 查看: 258 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
maad木虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
帮忙看一个审稿意见，谢谢（5个金币求助）
|
||
|
这是大修回来的意见： While the authors have done a reasonable job in terms of correcting obvious mistakes in their previous manuscript, I still cannot see that this manuscript adds nothing new. The conclusions are not backed by the simulation data. Admittedly, the conclusion that Y is a more dominant determinant than T is most likely true, yet, it's unwarranted by the authors data, which contrasts related studies of independent groups. Unfortunately, the analysis presented by the authors is not put in the appropriate perspective given these closely related studies. The authors should also read the literature more carefully, e.g., there are plenty of publications that ......, moreover, a number of references are misquoted, and some are not quoted appropriately. 1、主要疑问是这句： which contrasts related studies of independent groups 是说我们的工作仅仅对比了独立几组，还是我们引用文献的时候只对比了独立的几组文献，还是别的什么意思？ 2、The analysis presented by the authors is not put in the appropriate perspective given these closely related studies. 也不太明白啥意思 3、这段话的意思是不是就是说我们的结果跟别人的对比不够，导致讨论的不充分，不能支持结论？还是有别的隐含意思？ [ Last edited by maad on 2009-9-11 at 10:42 ] |
回复此楼
2楼2009-09-11 10:20:58
nono2009
超级版主 (文学泰斗)
No gains, no pains.
-
专家经验: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- 应助: 28684 (院士)
- 贵宾: 513.911
- 金币: 2555220
- 散金: 27828
- 红花: 2147
- 沙发: 66666
- 帖子: 1602255
- 在线: 65200.9小时
- 虫号: 827383
- 注册: 2009-08-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
- 管辖: 科研家筹备委员会
3楼2009-09-11 10:45:41
maad
木虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 6 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1649.2
- 散金: 769
- 红花: 9
- 帖子: 245
- 在线: 470小时
- 虫号: 565636
- 注册: 2008-05-29
- 专业: 膜生物化学与膜生物物理学
4楼2009-09-11 10:52:34
