24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
查看: 2506  |  回复: 11
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

lixia2010

木虫 (著名写手)

[交流] 拒稿,这样子重投么?已有9人参与

Your manuscript has been reviewed by expert referees, and their critiques are attached below.  I regret to have to inform you that, in its present form, it is not considered suitable for publication in Biol. Pharm. Bull.  Your manuscript has therefore been rejected.

Although, of course, we could give no guarantee of ultimate acceptance at this stage, we would not rule out the possibility of your submitting an entirely new paper with a new number and date of receipt, based on this work, providing you are able to deal with all of the criticisms raised by the reviewers.

If you decide to submit a new manuscript in time, please be sure to attach a separate document (supplemental file) that carefully addresses, point-by-point, the issues raised in the reviewer∏s comments.

Comments by Reviewer #1:

The manuscript entitled ∪A novel **, induces apoptosis in MCF-7 cells involving ROS generation and mitochondria activation∩ describes anti-cancer effects and its possible mechanisms of OEL.  Most of the study is well designed, however, there are some problems with interpretation of the data presented.

Major comments:
1) Experimental section should be revised carefully.  In particular, no detailed procedures were shown in ∪MTT assay∩.  
2) Page 5/Cytotoxicity of OEL in cancer cell lines: Authors claimed ∪OEL had a lower cytotoxicity on normal cells∩, and reviewer agree partly.  However, in my opinion, OEL can NOT be safe anti-cancer drug because of limited selectivity.  This should be addressed in Discussion section.
3) No efforts have been made to clarify the possible target biomolecules (enzymes, receptors, or other proteins) for OEL, although authors presented a few possible mechanism.  
4) Authors should specify the type of ROS in more detail.
5) It is still unclear why authors made a choice of these tumor and normal cells.  Authors should show rationale(s) for selection.
6) Fig.3: Apoptotic death seemed to be induced without OEL stimulation.  Authors should show the possible reasons.  If it can be natural apoptosis in the cultured cells, the data in Fig. 3 is not in agreement with Fig. 2 partly, since viability of cells without OEL stimulation was found to be 100% even after 72-h treatment.   


Comments by Reviewer #2:

The manuscript by Li et al. is a study of a novel compound (OEL) isolated from Chinese herb
inducing apotosis in MCF-7 cells involving ROS generation and mitochondria activation. In whole, there are of some interest in the current data obtained herein, but these in vitro data seem to be preliminary. In fact, to demonstrate the anti-cancer effect of this compound, the in vivo study should be performed. Thus, the current study has some limitation for the conclusion. If possible, the authors should provide some in vivo data for anti-cancer effect, and the current in vitro data may give the basis for the in vivo data.

请求帮助,投稿1.8左右的,给了这样的回复
回复此楼

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

★论文写作与投稿经验精华☆

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

li2010
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

lwiaanngg

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
建议修改后重新投同样期刊
10楼2010-11-07 13:12:52
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 12 个回答

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

能回应审稿人的意见,这样的情况修改重投接收的几率很大。当然要认真的改,也不要急,文章不长的话,尽量增加内容。
2楼2010-11-07 10:26:07
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ying3210

铜虫 (正式写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
我自己经历过3次这样的情况 这么跟你说吧,如果可能 尽量修改,换个期刊投稿。
一般情况下,如果编辑通知你拒,原因很多,不一定是仅仅没有达到评审的要求。你修改了继续投回去,可能仍然是送审,但是结果往往会拖很长的时间,耽误你的文章发表。而且结果经常还是被拒。
在外漂泊,流浪一方!
3楼2010-11-07 10:52:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

HotDogHipHop

铁虫 (正式写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
个人觉得,应该希望很大。
4楼2010-11-07 10:54:14
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见