È¥ÄêÉó¸åÒâ¼û»ØÀ´ÁË£¬µ±Ê±ÎÒ¾ÍÕð¾ªÁË£¬Ò²Óеã»ÒÐÄ¡£¡£¡£¡£¡£
½ñÄ껹ÊǵÃÊÕʰ£¬Çë´ó¼Ò°ïÎÒ¿´¿´Õâ¸öÉó¸åÒâ¼û. ÎÒÏë¼ÌÐø·¢Õâ¸öµµ´ÎµÄÓеãÎÊÌ⣬·¢µÍÒ»µãµÄÐв»£¿ÏÖÔÚÒ²²»¿ÉÄܲ¹ÊµÑéÁË£¬Ö»ÄÜÔÚд·¨ÉÏÐÞ¸ÄÁË¡£
Dear Dr.,
Thank you very much for submitting your above-mentioned manuscript for review to ####. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet one or several of our criteria and must be rejected for publication.
Specifically, I agree with the reviewer that the results you present are too preliminary to warrant publication at this stage.
Unfortunately, due to the concerns described above, we cannot accept a revised version of your manuscript. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.
Yours sincerely,
.........................................................................................
Reviewers' comments:
Much is needed to be improved for this study before ready for manuscript review.
First, as it is written as a methods development, at least one target gene needs to be illustrate. There are no details on methodology either.
Throughout the manuscript, there is not description of this gene? There is one published paper on this, another one referred to as submitted to Plos1. What is this gene? It is up to the author to explain, not the reviewer to find out through references.
Why only 2 out of 6 used were effective? There is no explanation at all. |