24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

lotus86

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 483.3
帖子: 45
在线: 4.9小时
虫号: 448540
注册: 2007-11-01

[交流] 文章被拒，很生气，能不能与主编辩争取重新决定呢？？？

，刚看到文章悲剧了，郁闷啊，看到审稿意见更加郁闷了！本人6月就毕业了，还指望着这个毕业呢。。。。结果呜呼了！
关键是这个意见不足以拒绝我的文章啊！
为什么啊？
为什么啊？
Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: The authors decribe ********. A very similar work has been published by Augustijns where increased absortion of **********.
The authors should explain why they have selected ****among many possible esters for this study. In my opinion much impressive study could be obtained when ***** are included and compared.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript for "Absorption enhancement of Adefovir Dipivoxil by incorporating esterase inhibitor ethyl oleate in emulsion as part of oil excipient"
is extremely well designed. Authors discussed their results with most recent literature and cited most updated literature. Inserted tables and figures are high quality.
这个第一个审稿人貌似没能准确理解我这文章的意思啊，我这个工作根本没人做过，人家做的和我做的真的是100%不一样啊，怎么会是Similar work呢？？胡扯吧啦的，气煞我也！而且第二个审稿人说挺好的啊！
我能否给编辑解释下第一个审稿人的意见不合适啊，给了不恰当的评论，要求重新决定啊！急盼前辈指点，晚辈感激不尽！
谢谢大家！

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

2025冷门绝学什么时候出结果已经有5人回复
Bioresource Technology期刊，第一次返修的时候被退回好几次了已经有7人回复
真诚求助：手里的省社科项目结项要求主持人一篇中文核心，有什么渠道能发核心吗已经有8人回复
寻求一种能扛住强氧化性腐蚀性的容器密封件已经有5人回复
请问哪里可以有青B申请的本子可以借鉴一下。已经有4人回复
孩子确诊有中度注意力缺陷已经有14人回复
请问下大家为什么这个铃木偶联几乎不反应呢已经有5人回复
请问有评职称，把科研教学业绩算分排序的高校吗已经有5人回复
天津工业大学郑柳春团队欢迎化学化工、高分子化学或有机合成方向的博士生和硕士生加入已经有4人回复
康复大学泰山学者周祺惠团队招收博士研究生已经有6人回复

1楼2010-02-09 09:59:46

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

lotus86

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 483.3
帖子: 45
在线: 4.9小时
虫号: 448540
注册: 2007-11-01

编辑终于回信了,大家帮忙看看吧！

，信件内容如下：
I apologize for the later reply to your mail dated 21th February regarding the rejection of your manuscript. As already mentioned in my first mail EJPS gets a significant number of manuscript and many more of good scientific quality than can be published. So as editors we are under a certain pressure and often have to reject manuscript we would have been pleased to publish if the journal had more volumes available. My rejection was as you could see based on the comments primarily by reviewer 1 who asked questions on novelty. However, I have been carefully through your manuscript again and from a general point of view I still agree with the reviewer. However, I would be prepare to look at the manuscript – but as a new submission – if are able to revise the manuscript and clearly work and discuss the novelty compared the e.g. prof. Augustijns’s work e.g. more focus on functional excipients and lipid formulation.
大家帮忙看看觉得希望大吗？？？