24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 1876  |  回复: 22
当前主题已经存档。

heqingyuan

金虫 (小有名气)

[交流] 第一次投稿SCI,看我的文章有机会吗 已有22人参与

Manuscript ID ABBS-2010-069 entitled "Start Codon Region-related Polymorphism(SCRP): A Novel DNA Marker Technique for Assessing Genetic Diversity in Alfalfa Germplasm Collections" which you submitted to Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, has been reviewed.  The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

The reviewer(s) have suggested some major revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments point by point and revise your manuscript.

To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/abbs  and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions."  Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision."  Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript.  Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer.

Please also HIGHLIGHT the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the TRACK CHANGES mode in MS Word (you can find this mode in TOOLS) or simply by using bold or colored text.

Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center. Please make sure that your main file should be in word format not in PDF format. The system will generate a PDF version of your manuscript automatically.

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided.  You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript.  In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be AS SPECIFIC AS possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

IMPORTANT:  Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript.  Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, your revised manuscript should be uploaded within 20 days.  If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, please contact our editorial office, otherwise we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica and I look forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,
Dr. Minghua XU PhD
Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica
mhxu@sibs.ac.cn
Tel: 86-21-5492-0956

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This is an interesting methodology paper describing a technique called started codon region-related polymorphism which allows identifying molecular markers by PCR and aimed in the gene start codon regions. However, this MS needs to be thoroughly revised because there are a lot of formatting mistakes:  spaces are lacking, check for uppercases, check for the spelling (southern blot instead of southern bolt for example), some sentences are not finished or bad edited (see below for more detail), the bibliography is not standardized (sometimes you wrote the names and surnames, sometimes the name was abbreviated). Please refer to the guide for authors to write this section in the proper form.

The discussion should be re-written as in some paragraph, you just repeated what you already mentioned in the M&M section and did not emphasizes the originality of your work.

Detailed comments.
Introduction:
-Paragraph 3 (P2 L21): the last sentence should be rephrased as it seems to be edited but not finished.

Materials and Methods
-I would appreciate more details about how the dendrogram was constructed. Was it based only on the presence or the absence of bands? Did you sequence the bands? How did you check when you used the same forward primer with two different reverse primers, if you did not amplify the same allelic variation? In this case your two set of primers would give you two bands of different length that you would consider as two variations but in fact would correspond to the same marker. Maybe among your 175 bands obtained from your PCR amplification, some of them are redundant and would interfere in the validity of your dendrogram.

Results:
-I would like you to explain why you defined the similarity coefficient 0.733 as a threshold to create the five sub-cluster described in your work.
-The very last sentence (P3 L57-58) should not be placed here as it is a discussion about a result obtained.

Discussion:
-Have the authors an idea on how many expressed sequences are touched by their technique compared to the 60% touched by the SRAP?
-The paragraph “primer design” seems to be useless since most information found here were already written in the materials and methods section and just described how the primers were chosen.
-Paragraph reproducibility : Why you did not include in your work your experiment with the soybean instead of just mentioning a result in the discussion?
-Paragraph advantages of SCRP (P5 L12): the penultimate sentence is not finished or bad edited.
References
-Needs to be correctly formatted (spacing, spelling, formatting)

Table 3: what do you mean by "Total No. of polymorphic” in the second column? Would you mean this the total number of bands you included in your study? If this is the case, please correct the denomination of that column.

Figure 1: You mentioned in table 3 that you obtained 10 bands among which 2 were polymorphic. I would appreciate to see arrows or anything else to highlight this point.


Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
Theoritically the SCRP seems to be interesting, but the methodology and results presented in the article do not prove that SCRP can be used as a molecular marker for diversity and QTL analysis (as mentioned in the paper).

A molecular maker technique should:
-reveal clearly distinguishable banding pattern,
-the observed banding pattern should be reproducible
-inheritable in subsequent generations.

The gel photograph failed to prove/support the first property and no gel photograph has been presented to support the 2nd property. No experiments have been conducted to prove that the observed banding patterns are heritable.

The manuscript is very poorly written…lots of spelling mistakes.
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

wowowo2008

木虫 (正式写手)

物理先锋


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
估计录不了了,除非你好好再修改一下!
The manuscript is “very poorly” written…lots of spelling mistakes
在下面地址里写个你知道的免费期刊目录http://emuch.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1379824
2楼2010-04-05 18:18:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

phypar

金虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
这个report够长的了,问题很多呀,不是那么好搞定,不过既然编辑让你修改重投,还是有希望的。但必须按照referee的建议一个一个的修改到位,还有写作必须提高很多才行。如果人家看你写的东西很累,甚至看不懂你写的英语,那会很糟糕的

[ Last edited by phypar on 2010-4-5 at 18:25 ]
3楼2010-04-05 18:21:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qinhuafeng

银虫 (正式写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
英语写作太差了,建议你好好修改
也当是练习自己的写作
努力改吧
一定有收获的
4楼2010-04-05 19:53:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qzhaosdu

金虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
编辑就给了20天,你怎么修啊。。。
Anewday,anewhour,anewminute,anewpeople.
5楼2010-04-05 20:00:11
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ashao

银虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
引用回帖:
Originally posted by qzhaosdu at 2010-04-05 20:00:11:
编辑就给了20天,你怎么修啊。。。

如果时间不够可以联系编辑再申请延伸吧
6楼2010-04-05 20:39:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

071018009

木虫 (小有名气)

好好改一改


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
要你修改说明有希望,按照编委的意见逐条能改的话一定要争取修改!不管结果如何,就论文的质量和写作的水平都会有很大提高的!努力!
7楼2010-04-05 20:40:49
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)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
编辑倾向于录用。加油改吧
RPisalwaysinbalance
8楼2010-04-05 20:46:42
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

csu_anfeng

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
非常有希望啊!加油啊! 改改就是了。
moodwater
9楼2010-04-05 20:58:45
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

airhoo1

木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
第一个评审员在语言和格式方面提的问题较多,第二个评审员觉得新意不够或是观点支持度不够(但感觉是作者没有表达出来),建议作者仔细读一遍文章,看看是不是写作的思路不是特别清晰,在清晰的思路(如第二位评审员提供的思路)上重新写一遍,写完后如果有条件最好请国外相熟的专家control一下最终版(主要看语言),实在没有条件也要请国内发英文较多的同行control一下,然后在致谢中加入感谢他们在英语方面提供帮助的话。经过对文章的修改,编辑和审稿人会看到你解决科学问题和语言问题的努力,应该很有希望。在投修改稿时,逐条认真response评审人的意见,能修改的地方尽力修改,无法修改的地方要澄明理由,尽量说服评审员和编辑。注意多检查几遍文章和response,细节制胜。编辑既然给了大修,还是值得努力的,加油!

[ Last edited by airhoo1 on 2010-4-5 at 21:35 ]
10楼2010-04-05 21:29:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 heqingyuan 的主题更新
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见