本人第一次投稿,文章大修中,有两个问题不明,请教各位:
1.审稿人的问题
* The work of C(某篇文献的作者) et al. [20] is somewhat misrepresented, this manuscript states low recovery for A, its metabolites in that paper. The fact is that the recovery for A reported by C(某篇文献的作者) was close to 95% in their preferred method.
讨论中我引了一篇参考文献来证明这篇参考文献和我的实验结果的一个参数的结果一致。但是审稿人说不符事实(somewhat misrepresented),但是事实上,那篇参考文献的讨论中确实提到了和我实验数据一致的地方,但是仔细想想我的数据和参考文献数据的背景还是有差别。所以想这么回答:
Thanks for pointing this out. We are sorry for our contrafactual description of in the section of “3.3 ”. This sentence and reference was deleted from the manuscript.
这样的话是不是有回避问题的嫌疑?删掉合适吗?
2审稿人的问题
* ... greatly (sic) polarity and pKa values... [19]: The data presented in reference 19 do not support the author's statement, in fact they show that careful pH adjustment can be used to extract A(一种药物) and it metabolites into ethyl acetate or to bind them through hydrophobic interactions to an adequate SPE sorbent.
Response: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous manuscript were not accurate. The reference 19 was deleted. In addition, the sentence “because of greatly difference polarity and pKa value between A and its metabolites” was changed to “may be due to greatly difference polarity and pKa value between A and its metabolites”
这一个是我引的参考文献不能很充分的支撑我的描述,我就将其删掉,并将表述改成may be。你觉得合适吗?
这样的话,两个都删掉会不会引起审稿人的反感?认为我在逃避问题。我承认之前写的很烂。
3 审稿人的问题:5 replicates for each concentration level seem too few for a reliable method validation. The authors should increase the number of replicates, specially since the method is not particularly time consuming。
一般最多也就是6个重复,我当时没重视这个问题就做了5个重复。实际上5个重复也是很多文章中使用的。而且这部分实验工作量还是比较大,大概需要一个月左右的时间,而且还要占着仪器别人不能用。我现在不想重做。这么回答合适吗?
Response: Thank the reviewer for the comments. Due to apparatus were busy working on other experiment, we regret that we could not renew the data of accuracy and precision.
跪求建议。谢谢。
[ Last edited by caicygeduo on 2010-8-28 at 11:02 ] |