24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

wu3833145

木虫 (正式写手)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 5579.6
帖子: 666
在线: 497.2小时
虫号: 622285
注册: 2008-10-10
专业: 食品加工技术

[交流] 投稿5个月后，终于收到回信了--大修已有41人参与

第一篇SCI文章，投稿5个月后，终于收到回信了--大修，时间紧迫啊（one week），由于本人没什么经验，还请大家帮忙参谋参谋给点指导意见，谢谢啊
Dear xxxxx,
You will be pleased to know that your paper entitled “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” is reviewed and will be re-evaluated for publication in xxxxxxxxxxxxxx only after incorporation of the following Major changes suggested by the referee(s) .Please find below the comments and send us the REVISED paper within a week(by May 2, 2009).
老外也有出错的时候啊应该是2010年5月2号之前吧。。。。，一共有5个审稿人审稿了。。。。。怎么这么多啊！！！！！！！！
Referee 1 Comments:
This is an interesting manuscript and allows the reader to see the original data used for xxxx. An important aspoect is that the influence of xxxxxxxxxhas been incorporated xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Although the manuscript is set out logically, it could do with a grammar check from a native English speaker.
第一位专家指出：英语语法要修改，这个没提太大意见吧？可是啊？

Referee 2 Comments: This paper proposes prediction of xxxxxxxxxxxx by a model to analysis previously reported compounds. This is an important topic; however, 1. The manuscript did not give where the model Eq. (1) come from, or how is the Eq. (1) developed? 2. The model is not a new one. The prediction of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx by considering the role of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has been reported in literature (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
我不懂This is an important topic是什么样的一个评价啊，后面提了2个问题，第一个我知道该如何回答。第2个问题是我用到的一个因素前人已经考虑到了，我也用了，所以不是new one，那应该做出如何的见解？提出自己的心意吗？

Referee 3 Comments: I recommend that this manuscript should be accepted for publication after revision according to the following comment: 1) Page 3, line 7: Concerning xxxxxx: Are there any structural features in xxxxxx? If so, describe it briefly.
貌似第三位还比较支持，感谢感谢。提出了个问题，说我选的几个化合物可有什么结构上的特征，可是我思考了，貌似没有，但我直接说没有吗？

Referee 4 Comments:
The paper can not be judged due to experimental, molecular and meritorical problems. The structure of paper and procedures are not clearly described and seen not appropriate. Reviewer believes that this paper is irrelevant as typical medical paper about xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Data in paper mostly are not new, because Authors addressed fully or partially old data (see references 1, 2, 6, 12, 22, 23, 24). In generally Authors repeated data from other scientists. They are not presenting typical experimental data. In this situation it is difficult to discus xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and especially xxxxxxxxxxxx. About above problems they can only speculate. It is difficult to accept study, which are summarized on page 7 line 4 in next ways “xxxxxxxxxxxxx”. No scientific comments from neuroscience reviewer side may be being able to comment this computer specialist. Additionally in paper are grammar mistakes. It is typical paramedical paper. It can be consider in chemical, physical or mathematical journals for publication.
这位专家写了不少意见啊。。。。。呵呵感谢感谢！！！问题还是很多啊

Referee 5 Comments:
There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that need to be corrected.
The second paragraph in the introduction does not make any sense. The two sentences seem to be two separate ideas that are unconnected.
Second page, end of first paragraph: The ‘biological factors’ are not discussed.
Methods section, Descriptor Collection: There is no discussion about xxxxxxxxxxxx in the following section. A brief introduction to the methods xxxxxxxxxxxxx should be given.
Methods section, Data Collection: There is no discussion as to how the compounds were partitioned into the training and test sets. Furthermore, it would appear from figure 1 that the chemical space represented by the compounds in the test set is not adequately covered by the compounds in the training set. (see, for example, compounds 98, 99, and 108). In addition, there are quite a few small organic compounds represented in the training set with no comparable examples in the test set. A quantitative measure of the chemical similarity, for example, may be informative. Taken together, these factors could bias the model towards the compounds in the training set.
Results & Discussion – Development of Predictive Model: There is no discussion devoted to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This is curious, as Table 1 indicates that the values of the descriptors calculated for these five compounds are (with on exception) within the dynamic range of the dataset used to train the model.
Proper controls were not carried out with respect to model validation in both the training and test sets. The responses should be randomized (or scrambled) and the model building / validation carried out to ensure that the experimental approach cannot be attributed to modeling noise.
Although the author’s efforts to include xxxxxxxxxxxx in the model are admirable, they have not actually shown that incorporation of these descriptors have resulted in a better model. The authors should use the same procedures to generate models without xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and compare the results to their existing model. If the model presented in the manuscript is shown to be significantly improved over these three models, the authors may make the claim that incorporation of xxxxxxxxxxx descriptors result in a model that is a better predictor of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
第五位专家更是给出了很多宝贵意见啊。。。。。头大啦

麻烦大家帮忙看看，可有希望啊，希望能中啊。。。。。谢谢
感谢感谢

回复此楼