24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 245  |  回复: 3
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

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

» 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

nono2009

超级版主 (文学泰斗)

No gains, no pains.

优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀区长优秀版主

"I still cannot see that this manuscript adds nothing new. "
3楼2009-09-11 10:45:41
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 4 个回答

yw__577

金虫 (文坛精英)

貌似是说你跟别人的结论有差异
而且好像很多相关文献没有引用

是不是撞上一个跟你差不多研究背景的审稿人啊
莫非没有引用他的工作他很生气,呵呵
2楼2009-09-11 10:20:58
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

maad

木虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
Originally posted by nono2009 at 2009-9-11 10:45:
"I still cannot see that this manuscript adds nothing new. "

呵呵,我当时也注意到这句话了,应该是审稿人录入错误吧
4楼2009-09-11 10:52:34
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