| 查看: 3211 | 回复: 15 | |||
ansrang木虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
请问这个审稿回复是什么意思？ 已有14人参与
|
|
提了几个问题，最后一个问题是：English language is correct in use and grammar. 这到底是什么意思？是说要我再修改一下语言吗？ |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
让我中一个面上吧！
已经有15人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有5人回复
-
跳槽后在研项目怎么办？
已经有10人回复
-
什么时候开奖？
已经有10人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有16人回复
-
今天放榜吗？
已经有16人回复
-
93BebMhtakh前后11位开头都是大写
已经有8人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有4人回复
-
只有每年这种时候来逛逛小木虫
已经有26人回复
-
filecode，4个jtjc了
已经有16人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 请问下主编这么回复是什么意思？
已经有30人回复
- 各位帮我看看这个审稿意见是什么意思
已经有5人回复
- 这种审稿意见是什么意思啊？怎么回复好哦
已经有41人回复
- 帮忙看看这个审稿意见是什么意思
已经有4人回复
- 请大家帮忙分析下这句审稿意见是什么意思
已经有4人回复
- ASME一个期刊审了13个月，Editor终于给我回信了，请问这是什么意思？
已经有7人回复
- 审稿意见回复（格式方面的），汉语大概意思已经写出来，求翻译
已经有5人回复
- 请问审稿人这句话什么意思啊？
已经有5人回复
- 请问这个退稿理由是什么意思呀，为什么不给审稿意见呀！
已经有9人回复
- 谁能帮我看看这个审稿回复是啥意思？？？？？？谢谢了
已经有5人回复
- 急，帮忙看看这个审稿人的真实意思是什么
已经有6人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看如何回复审稿意见
已经有4人回复
ljhcumt
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
木虫精英
- 应助: 82 (初中生)
- 金币: 8819.5
- 散金: 103
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 2761
- 在线: 247.2小时
- 虫号: 793751
- 注册: 2009-06-13
- 专业: 泛函分析
2楼2010-06-20 07:05:40
statsky
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 35 (小学生)
- 金币: 4634.7
- 散金: 2415
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 782
- 在线: 627.8小时
- 虫号: 417924
- 注册: 2007-07-02
- 专业: 数学
3楼2010-06-20 07:07:43
zhiyongwang
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 269 (大学生)
- 金币: 48211.4
- 散金: 4812
- 红花: 26
- 沙发: 3
- 帖子: 25664
- 在线: 1151.4小时
- 虫号: 897198
- 注册: 2009-11-08
- 专业: 分离化学
4楼2010-06-20 08:24:40
5楼2010-06-20 08:37:15
mlanqiang
木虫之王 (文学泰斗)
蓝博士
- 应助: 3409 (副教授)
- 金币: 55278.8
- 散金: 5498
- 红花: 62
- 帖子: 73916
- 在线: 730.8小时
- 虫号: 302202
- 注册: 2006-12-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 胶体与界面化学
6楼2010-06-20 08:41:46
yuan999
专家顾问 (知名作家)
-
专家经验: +355 - 应助: 1293 (讲师)
- 贵宾: 0.247
- 金币: 22318.1
- 散金: 98
- 红花: 19
- 帖子: 6274
- 在线: 620.1小时
- 虫号: 591578
- 注册: 2008-09-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 半导体光电子器件
- 管辖: 微米和纳米
7楼2010-06-20 08:50:50
2009210721
铜虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 3418.6
- 散金: 23
- 帖子: 2374
- 在线: 88小时
- 虫号: 872099
- 注册: 2009-10-14
- 专业: 结构化学
8楼2010-06-20 08:53:29
ansrang
木虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 3964.5
- 散金: 10
- 红花: 3
- 帖子: 259
- 在线: 225.2小时
- 虫号: 349537
- 注册: 2007-04-20
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 生物化工与食品化工
|
审稿回复如下： We have received reviewer's reports on your above manuscript. They indicated that it is not acceptable for publication in its present form. However, if you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript within 30 days. If you are submitting a revised manuscript reviewer1#省略。。。 reviewer2# 1) The activities reported in table 1 are by mg. It is not clear if it is mg of CLEA or mg of protease. In the last case, there is no explicit explanation in the experimental part about how the weight of protease in the p-CLEAs or in the CLEas was obtained. No report of procedure to know about remaining protease in the supernatant of the preparation or in the washing steps. The initial amount was 5 mg of papain in 10 mls. I recommend the authors to be very careful with the methods of detection of enzyme amount as protein quantification. Further material Bradley J.S.C. Olson and John Markwell Current Protocols in Protein Science (2007) Supplement 48 ; 3.4.1 to 3.4.29 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2) It is known today that several protein detection methods have several problems in its application to protease/other enzymes concentration-especially if stirring is involved and buffer is present.It is included the parameter Ew as enzyme amount in page 4,but it is not clear how this amount was obtained- if it is protease. IF the reported weight is of CLEA and no mass balance was done to know about how much protease is present in the CLEA, this should be clearly stablished. One way to do it is to measure activity in supernatants and washings,assuming similar activity of the free enzyme and of the remaining not-precipitated and not cross-linked enzyme. 3) Taking into account the above, the authors presented in Table 1 several results associated to their CLEAs. Without the knowledge on the total amount of protease, they do not know per mg of it the actual activity. However, the comparison is pertinent between CLEAs.Without knowledge on the protease amount present in both CLEAs what is not pertinent is the comparison with the free enzyme. 4) With these ideas in mind, how do they know if the lower activity in the case of the CLEA in table 1 is due to the presence of the starch and a "dilution" effect of the starch. Because it is not clear if the activity reports are presented by mg of enzyme or mg of CLEA, this is not known. BTW, if it is by mg of enzyme, how the protease amount in CLEAs was determined? 5) IF the porous structure is different, the authors could try to perform a BET Area determination for the CLEA and the p-CLEA to give further support to their assumptions. They also could perform the complete N2 isotherm to know about the pore distribution. 6)English language is correct in use and grammar. 最后一个问题就是我说的，让人摸不着头脑，请大家指点 |
9楼2010-06-20 09:47:38
10楼2010-06-20 12:11:56
