24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

末页

当前主题已经存档。

redpighead

新虫 (正式写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.05
金币: 337.1
散金: 7
红花: 5
帖子: 703
在线: 162.6小时
虫号: 983092
注册: 2010-03-26
专业: 认知功能障碍

[交流] 第一篇SCI文章收到decision letter，贴全部内容，有礼品！已有61人参与

第一篇SCI文章收到decision letter，贴全部内容，请高手支招，还有没有希望？希望多大？如果这篇文章最终能发表，凡是跟帖的均可得到礼品一份。本人QQ：5326376 如加我请注明：SCI交流

03-Apr-2010

Dear Dr. ****:

Thank you for submitting your paper ******** to us. We are sorry to say it is not acceptable in its current form for publication in "Tissue Engineering" yet it has the potential, given substantial revision, to meet the level of quality needed for publication in the Journal. This will ultimately need to be determined based upon a revision and resubmission of the manuscript. Comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter for your guidance in revision.

We receive a large number of manuscripts, and we can only accept those that reflect the top 15 percent of the work in the field and whose publication will have corresponding impact.

If you would like us to reconsider your work for publication in "Tissue Engineering" please submit a revision which reflects changes as indicated in the reviewer(s) comments. Please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point that is stated when you submit the revised manuscript.

To revise your manuscript, log into ****
and enter your Author Center. You will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." You will notice the manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

You will not be able 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 OR BY USING BOLD OR COLORED TEXT.

You can upload the revised manuscript when it is prepared and submit it through your Author Center.

You will be able to respond at this time to comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. It is important to be very specific in your responses to these comments. This space may also be used to document any changes you made to the original manuscript.

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

We are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible but within three months at the latest, or we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to "Tissue Engineering," and we look forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,

****

Reviewer(s) Comments to Author and Score Sheet:
Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject & Resubmit - Quality Assignment is below 15% but the manuscript has significant potential to be brought above 15% with revision.

Comments:
This study has assessed the effects of embedding purported ****.
****. However, the paper suffers several weaknesses :
1****
2****
3****
4****
5****

Additional Questions:
Does this manuscript reflect the top 15 percent of work in the field of tissue engineering?: No

Does the manuscript contain errors of fact or logic?: No

To your knowledge, is the work original?: No

Which diagrams do you feel should be reproduced?:

Does the summary bring out the main points of the paper?: Yes

Is the title suitable?: Yes

Are the references adequate?: Yes

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject & Resubmit - Quality Assignment is below 15% but the manuscript has significant potential to be brought above 15% with revision.

Comments:
The manuscript of Guo et al. ****. The manuscript is clear and well written. The methodology used is adequate. However, it could be desirable the inclusion of an experimental group ****. In “Measurement of ****” the authors should explain how assessed an exact equal region for comparison (How many **** have been cut? How did they decide what compare? ).
The methodology used by the authors is no t novel ( see ****). The authors claim “To date, this is the only study that has investigated the ****. This sentence is unfortunate. The authors just demonstrate the useful ****. Nonetheless, due to the methodological similarities with **** papers the authors should include both among the references.
The authors should make an effort to adapt the discussion and conclusions to the real contribution of the mauscript.

Additional Questions:
Does this manuscript reflect the top 15 percent of work in the field of tissue engineering?: No

Does the manuscript contain errors of fact or logic?: No

To your knowledge, is the work original?: Yes

Which diagrams do you feel should be reproduced?:

Does the summary bring out the main points of the paper?: Yes

Is the title suitable?: Yes

Are the references adequate?: No

回复此楼