编辑终于回信了,大家帮忙看看吧！

31楼2010-03-01 19:52:38

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？？？

32楼2010-03-06 10:45:09

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

请大家帮忙看看啊??很急的在线等啊！！

，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！

刚被拒时写的话啊！！大家看看前后故事，觉得这次的回信有戏吗

33楼2010-03-06 10:50:27

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

peterkf

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 21196.9
散金: 7
红花: 1
帖子: 2326
在线: 377.8小时
虫号: 262707
注册: 2006-07-01
性别: GG
专业: 无机合成和制备化学

★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流

A very similar work has been published by Augustijns where increased absortion of

这个已经犯了大忌，建议楼主仔细查一下，我感觉审稿人不会胡说，万一是自己文献没有查全呢，将来可就麻烦了

34楼2010-03-06 10:53:54

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

paperpublishing

铜虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 327.9
散金: 10
帖子: 1238
在线: 69.2小时
虫号: 548366
注册: 2008-04-18

★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流

莫得戏了，好好修改，改投到其他的地方吧。他仍坚持审稿人的意见是可以的

RPisalwaysinbalance

35楼2010-03-06 10:56:06

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

36楼2010-03-06 11:01:57

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

peterkf

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 21196.9
散金: 7
红花: 1
帖子: 2326
在线: 377.8小时
虫号: 262707
注册: 2006-07-01
性别: GG
专业: 无机合成和制备化学

★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流

说句难听的话，有名的杂志的编辑肯定比你导师水平高，你可以申诉自己的优点，但是一定要仔细考虑一下审稿人的意见。审稿人一般是公平的。

37楼2010-03-06 11:38:19

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

laibaishun

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 527.3
散金: 1333
红花: 4
帖子: 386
在线: 154.8小时
虫号: 803608
注册: 2009-07-05
性别: GG

★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流

没必要申请了，只能在投了。呵呵

38楼2010-03-06 11:40:42

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

tangyuxin008

金虫 (正式写手)

应助: 22 (小学生)
金币: 1099.9
散金: 2796
红花: 11
帖子: 885
在线: 339小时
虫号: 439033
注册: 2007-10-06
性别: GG
专业: 半导体材料

强烈申述！！！

lieyu008

39楼2010-03-06 11:49:46

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

应助: 2283 (讲师)
贵宾: 0.05
金币: 17310
散金: 2544
红花: 76
帖子: 15735
在线: 2926.6小时
虫号: 489254
注册: 2008-01-01
专业: IEEE

回复了就有希望。这样最好采取折中的办法（尽量改，同时强调创新程度和贡献），改好重投，希望很大（不过还是要做好被拒的准备，特别是编辑再送回原来的审稿人的话）。

引用回帖:

Originally posted by lotus86 at 2010-03-06 11:01:57:

，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 manus ...

[ Last edited by visitor958 on 2010-3-6 at 12:08 ]