24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

wxw1981_2001

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 3372.9
散金: 45
红花: 120
帖子: 406
在线: 217小时
虫号: 451776
注册: 2007-11-05
性别: MM
专业: 食品科学基础

[交流] 帮忙分析一下

投的一个英国杂志刚有回复：Major revisions
我这是第一次投英文文章，感觉是大修。然后告诉老板，老板说别人的都不这样，怎么到你这就大修了呢，我晕了，然后还问：修了之后还有枪毙的可能吗？我再次晕！
大家帮我分析一下，我是修改呢还是改投？

编辑的原话:
Thank you for submitting this manuscript for consideration for publication in Food and Bioproducts Processing.

We have now received referees' reports. Major revisions are required before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. I would be pleased to receive a revised version from you for further consideration.

When submitting your revised manuscript, please respond to the comments made by the referees. In general, the language needs to be improved and it is strongly recommended that the manuscript be proofread by an English editor.  In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the referees.

We aim to facilitate timely publication of all manuscripts submitted to Food and Bioproducts Processing, so please submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible, and within  four months at latest. If you require additional time to revise the manuscript, please e-mail the Editorial Office: sord@icheme.org

其中一个评阅人的话：
General comments
This manuscript will add to the knowledge of films based on carrot puree once a major revision was made. The academic and industrial interest of the subject is relevant and  technical quality is acceptable regarding the preformed assays. However the presentation and the readability of the paper should be revised and improved.
A physicochemical characterization of the carrot puree used in film formulations is required as well as a description about film appearance. Likewise, authors should consider to perform color analysis of developed films since this is a critical parameter that determine future film applications.
In my opinion, the experiments performed have been carefully planned but the manuscript has been wrongly organized.
Materials and Methods section has not been described in a proper form. Film formulation, which is the core of the paper, is not clear and according to this, readers would be disconcerted about the Results and Discussion section. Besides, as a reader, I expect a deep discussion of the obtained results.
The literature cited is relevant and adequate. The statistical analysis performed was inobjectable and it was described in the main text and tables. Although, an explanation or hypothesis about statistical observations are required in order to improve the discussion of the obtained results.
后面是具体的修改意见。

回复此楼