| 查看: 2019 | 回复: 22 | |||
| 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 | |||
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
282求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
本科211生物医学工程085409求调剂339分
已经有8人回复
-
材料调剂
已经有3人回复
-
284求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
385分 生物学（071000）求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
材料专硕 调剂
已经有14人回复
-
求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
306分材料与化工求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
一志愿211生物学280分 求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
086000生物与医药298调剂求助
已经有9人回复
9楼2010-04-05 20:58:45
wowowo2008
木虫 (正式写手)
物理先锋
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2373.7
- 散金: 319
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 600
- 在线: 36.9小时
- 虫号: 705382
- 注册: 2009-02-21
- 专业: 基础物理学
2楼2010-04-05 18:18:42
phypar
金虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1060.1
- 散金: 46
- 帖子: 1291
- 在线: 111.8小时
- 虫号: 954437
- 注册: 2010-02-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 粒子物理学和场论
3楼2010-04-05 18:21:46
qinhuafeng
银虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 2 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 351.9
- 散金: 792
- 红花: 4
- 帖子: 826
- 在线: 457.5小时
- 虫号: 901447
- 注册: 2009-11-12
- 专业: 模式识别
4楼2010-04-05 19:53:32
