24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3701)
>文献求助 (346)
>虫友互识 (288)
>导师招生 (274)
>博后之家 (139)
>硕博家园 (138)
>休闲灌水 (136)
>论文投稿 (109)
>考博 (108)
>基金申请 (81)
>教师之家 (48)
>招聘信息布告栏 (47)
>考研 (40)
>公派出国 (39)
>绿色求助(高悬赏) (32)
>找工作 (29)

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

hk0320051

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 108.2
散金: 23
帖子: 28
在线: 11.5小时
虫号: 1040651
注册: 2010-06-12
性别: GG
专业: QSAR

[交流] 帮忙看一下Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology的回复已有6人参与

我四月中旬在 Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology上投了一篇QSAR（quantitative structure-activity relationship）类的文章，今天给了我回复：

Your manuscript is judged to be a Negotiable Rejection. This means that the reviewers and the editors believe your manuscript can be revised to make it acceptable scientifically as opposed to rejecting it outright. You must incorporate the reviewer suggestions and you must provide a list of the revisions made and a list of rebuttal comments, if any.

This classification requires very careful thought about your revisions. Each suggested revision must be incorporated or rebutted. Failure to revise appropriately will result in rejection.
是拒绝了吗？
是否还有回旋的余地？
下面是意见（不是很明白写的是什么意思）：

COMMENTS TO AUTHOR:

This is a nice approach, but of what use is it?  GLC retention time prediction has been around for 50 years.  If the experimenter knows they are analyzing only PAHs then this works, but if they are faced witha variety of compounds then of what use is this model??

There is an additional problem with the variety of columns on the market for GLC.  Which of these columns is different enough from the column used that this model would not work?

The authors need to rethink the reasons for doing this study and its usefulness in the big world of science.  If they think they can justify the study based on these questions then it will be reviewed again.

Revise and rereview.

EDITORIAL REQUIREMENTS

Yes  No  N/A

()    ()    ()  Manuscript Length is Appropriate
()    ()    ()  Manuscript Prepared According to Instructions
()    ()    () Clearly written with proper English grammar and syntax.
()    ()    () Introductory paragraphs are concise and  appropriate
()    ()    ()  References cited to current studies in introduction.
()    ()    () There is a clear purpose & hypothesis for the study.
()    ()    () Sampling is described.
()    ()    () Methods & Materials section is detailed so that the study could be repeated.
()    ()    () Analytical methods are described or provided by readily available reference(s).
()    ()    () Limits of detection are reported.
()    ()    () Fortified sample recoveries are reported.
()    ()    () Statistics are appropriate and are referenced in the Materials & Methods section.
()    ()    () Data are compared to other studies.
()    ()    () References are current and appropriate
()    ()    ()  Significance of findings are described.

TECHNICAL MERIT

Check one rank in each category
   1 = poor, 5 = excellent

1  2  3  4  5
()  ()  ()  ()  ()  Clarity
()  ()  ()  ()  ()  Technical Quality
()  ()  ()  ()  ()  Originality
()  ()  ()  ()  ()  Novelty.
()  ()  ()  ()  ()  Data interpretation is appropriate.
()  ()  ()  ()  ()  Scientific value

SIGNIFICANCE
()  None
()  Local
()  National
()  Regional
()  Global
---

回复此楼