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

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

，可是编辑也这样说了啊！
“ 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.”
后来我们总结原因可能是因为题目和摘要写的不够清楚，没有能如实反应文章的创新性！
我们导师说编辑不愿意承认自己的错误---没仔细看文章。。。。就给自己台阶下，让我revise the manuscript ，再走下程序，接受没问题。。。。。

大家看看了，这个杂志在我们领域还算不错的啊