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

lixia2010

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 3855.6
散金: 3168
红花: 10
帖子: 2301
在线: 449.6小时
虫号: 1006358
注册: 2010-04-26
性别: MM
专业: 机构学与机器人

[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

li2010

1楼2010-11-07 10:09:03

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

visitor958

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

IEEE杂志与会议专家

应助: 2283 (讲师)
贵宾: 0.05
金币: 17310
散金: 2544
红花: 76
帖子: 15735
在线: 2926.6小时
虫号: 489254
注册: 2008-01-01
专业: IEEE

话不能这么说。能修改，当然重投，不能，就改投。改投是重新排队，什么都未知（改投不是可能送审，而是肯定送审）。现在至少知道问题是什么，审稿人及编辑注意些什么。修改再换个期刊，有时改的内容变成问题了都有。

引用回帖:

Originally posted by ying3210 at 2010-11-07 10:52:31:
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 ...