| ²é¿´: 1094 | »Ø¸´: 3 | |||
nakerunner½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[ÇóÖú]
Analtica Chimica ActaµÄeditorÁ½´Î½ÐÖØÍ¶£¬¹ÖÔÕ
|
|
ǰ¶Îʱ¼äͶÁËAnaltica Chimica Actaһƪ£¬Èý¸öreviewers£¬ÆäÖÐÒ»¸ö¾Ü¾ø£¬ÀíÓÉÊÇ´´ÐÂÐÔ²»×ã¡£ÆäÓàÁ½¸ö´óÐÞ¡£ÓÚÊÇ´óÐÞÔÕ£¬ºóÃæÁ½¸ö½ÓÊÜ£¬µ«ÊǵÚÒ»¸öreviewerÒÀÈ»¾Ü¾ø£¬ËµÀïÃæÎÊÌâºÜ¶à£¬ÁгöÁË30¶à¸öÎÊÌ⣬²¢ÇÒÓеÄÎÊÌâÎÒ¾õµÃËûµÄÒâ¼û²¢²»ÕýÈ·£¬×îºóeditor¾ö²ß²»Ï£¬Ö»ºÃ¸ørejectedÁË¡£µ«Êǽ¨ÒéÖØÍ¶£¨¾ßÌåÄÚÈݼûÏ£© ÖØÍ¶ºó£¬±¾ÒÔΪ»á»¹reviewerµÄ£¬½á¹ûÖ»ÊÇeditor»»ÁË£¬µ«ÊÇ»¹Êǵ½ÔÀ´ÄǸöreviewerÄÇÀ²¢ÁíÍâ¼ÓÁËÒ»¸öreviewer£¬Éó¸å1¸öÔ£¬Reviews required completed ³ÖÐøÁË15Ì죬µ±Ê±²Â²âÊÇreviewerÒâ¼û²»Ò»Ö¡£×îÖÕ¹û²»ÆäÈ»£¬editorÔÙ´ÎrejectedÁË£¬²¢ÇÒ˵ÎÄÕ°´ÕÕreviewerÒâ¼ûÐ޸ĺó¿ÉÒÔ·¢±í£¬½¨ÒéÖØÍ¶¡£Á½¸öreviwerÒ»¸öСÐÞ£¬ÔÀ´ÄǸöreviewerÈÔÈ»¾Ü¾ø£¬»¹ËµÎÒûÓÐÍêÈ«°´ÕÕËûµÄÒªÇó¸Ä£¬ÎÒÏëµÄÊǵ±Ê±ÒªÖØÍ¶£¬¾Íû±ØÒªÍêÈ«°´ÕÕpoint-to-point¸ÄÁË¡£ ÏÖÔÚµÄÎÊÌâÊÇ£ºÎÒÊÇ·ñÐèÒªÐ޸ĺóÖØÍ¶£¬Èç¹ûÖØÍ¶£¬ÊÇ·ñ»¹ÊÇÔÀ´ÄǸö¾ÝÎÒÄǸöreviewerÉó¸å£¬Èç¹û»¹ÊÇÄǸö£¬¹À¼ÆÎÒµÄÎÄÕÂÐ׶༪ÉÙ¡£ ÒòΪeditorûÓÐÒªÇóÆÚÏÞ£¬ÄÜ·ñÏÈͶ±ðµÄÔÓÖ¾ÊÔһϣ¬Èç¹ûÖÐÁ˾ÍËãÁË£¬²»ÖÐÔÙ°´ÕÕreviewerÒâ¼û¸ÄÁËÖØÍ¶£¿ ÏÖÔÚ¸½ÉÏÁ½´ÎeditorÒâ¼û£º µÚÒ»´Î: Dear Dr......, On behalf of the editor handling your manuscript, I am writing to you in reference to your manuscript entitled:........ On the basis of the review(s) appended below, we regret that your manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form for publication in ACA. However, it is the opinion of the Editor that there is potential merit in the work described and that a thorough consideration of the reviewer comments might result in a publishable paper. We would therefore be willing to consider a new manuscript that describes this work. Since this will be considered as a new submittal, it can be submitted online at any future time. In such a case, in the cover letter please address the prior comments of the reviewers, detailing what changes have been made. Thank you for your interest in Analytica Chimica Acta. Yours sincerely, Tanya Devanny Journal Manager Analytica Chimica Acta E-mail: aca@elsevier.com Reviewers' comments: Dear Dr ......, As you will see below the revised version of your manuscript still has numerous shortcomings not the least of which is a problem with novelty. Thus I must regrettably decline its publication. If you intend to re-submit this study I would strongly urge you to consider all of the comments made by the reviewers especially those related to novelty and language quality. Sincerely Neil Barnett Editor Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for their appreciation concerning the comments made. However, the revised manuscript has still many problems and it is not in a condition appropriate for publication. Some parts have been improved in terms of language. Others have been made very confusing or do not make sense (e.g., the description of the antibody coupling to ....). Concerning the novelty of the work I cannot agree with the authors' opinion. They wrote an extended response to the objection which, however, was not included in the manuscript to support its novelty. The references that they used in their answer are quite old (most of them dated back to 1985). Several problems related to ....., mentioned in these papers, have been solved or surpassed over the years. In any case, as I wrote above the manuscript is not appropriate for publication. Possibly, it could be decreased considerably in length and be presented as a technical note, focusing solely on the two-step assay. Below I have listed some of my objections and questions that could be taken into account in case that the authors would like to revise it. µÚ¶þ´Î£º Dear Dr. ........, On behalf of the editor handling your manuscript, I am writing to you in reference to your manuscript entitled:........ On the basis of the review(s) appended below, we regret that your manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form for publication in ACA. However, it is the opinion of the Editor that there is potential merit in the work described and that a thorough consideration of the reviewer comments might result in a publishable paper. We would therefore be willing to consider a new manuscript that describes this work. Since this will be considered as a new submittal, it can be submitted online at any future time. In such a case, in the cover letter please address the prior comments of the reviewers, detailing what changes have been made. Thank you for your interest in Analytica Chimica Acta. Yours sincerely, Tanya Devanny Journal Manager Analytica Chimica Acta E-mail: aca@elsevier.com Reviewers' comments: Dear Dr ......., Clearly Reviewer #2 is still unsupportive of your manuscript an my reading of it backs up his criticisms. Sincerely Editor Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes two approaches for the detection of C-reactive protein (CRP) using antibody conjugated quantum dots. The approaches are sensitive and selective. Practicality of the two approaches is no doubt. 1. ....... 2. ....... 3. ........ Reviewer #2: In this (third) revised version of the manuscript the authors replied to 21 out of 31 specific comments that I had made. In addition, they did not responded at all to the introductory statement of the review and they did not provide a response letter listing the exact changes they made in response to the review. I consider that the manuscript has considerable problems, especially in the methods description and again the right axis of Fig.2B is wrong. Therefore I suggest rejection of the manuscript. [ Last edited by nakerunner on 2011-5-30 at 23:42 ] |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸±±¾©»¯¹¤´óѧ£¬³õÊԳɼ¨350Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ14È˻ظ´
¸´ÊÔµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
323·Ö£¨¼ÆËã»úÊÓ¾õºÍ´óÄ£ÐÍÏîÄ¿£©ÄÜÖ±½ÓÉÏÊÖ
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
311·Ö 22408 Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
320·ÖÈ˹¤ÖÇÄܵ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Ö£´ó0705Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
0703»¯Ñ§
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
301Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
306·Ö²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
²ÄÁϵ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍÆ¼ö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
Õâ¸öÊÇËã´óÐÞ»¹ÊÇËãÖØÍ¶£¿
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
½ÌÄãÈçºÎʹÓôúÀíÏÂÔØÎÄÏ×£¬´Ó´ËÏÂÔØÎÄÏײ»ÓóÏëѧµÄ¸Ï½ô½øÀ´¿´°É
ÒѾÓÐ63È˻ظ´
JOSA A ÂÛÎÄÉó¸å½áÊøÒ»ÖÜ£¬±à¼Î´¸ø½áÂÛ
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
Ͷ¸åÁ½´Î±»soft rejected£¬Ôõô°ì£¿
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
acta E ÕæµÄ±»SCIÌßÁËÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ37È˻ظ´
acta mater under review 3 ¸ö¶àÔÂÁË£¬ÆÚ¼äµÄÒ»µãС¾Ñé
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
¹ØÓÚElectrochimica ActaµÄͶ¸å¸ñʽÎÊÌâ
ÒѾÓÐ20È˻ظ´
acta eËÀÁËÎÒÃǺÃÎÞÓï
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
ͶAnalytica Chimica ActaºóµÄ״̬ÈÃÈ˷ѽâ
ÒѾÓÐ35È˻ظ´
¸÷λ´óÏÀ£¬Ð¡µÜÏò¡¶ÖйúҩѧÔÓÖ¾¡·Í¶ÁËһƪ×ÛÊö£¬Ð¡µÜÓм¸¸öÎÊÌâÇë½Ì£¬Öؽð´ðл£¡
ÒѾÓÐ17È˻ظ´
ͶÁËACTA£¬·µ»Ø´óÐÞ£¬Éó¸åÈËÎʵ½Êý¾ÝÖØÏÖÐÔµÄÎÊÌ⣬ÈçºÎ»Ø´ð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Microchim ActaÔÓ־״̬һֱ±£³Öwith editor²î²»¶àÊ®ÌìÁË£¬ÊDz»ÊǺܿÉÄܱ»¾Ü°¡£¿¼±£¡
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
MSEA£¬±à¼Ì×»°ÈøÄÓïÑÔ£¬10Ììºó¸ÄºÃÖØÍ¶Í¨¹ý£¬µ«with editorÒ»ÖܶàÁË»¹Ã»ËÍÉó£¿
ÒѾÓÐ34È˻ظ´
ͶActa Mater Ò»¸öÐÇÆÚ±¯¾çÁË£¬ÄÚÐÄÆàÁ¹ÖÐ~~~
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
nakerunner
½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
- Ó¦Öú: 3 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 1011.6
- É¢½ð: 25
- Ìû×Ó: 132
- ÔÚÏß: 165.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 287501
- ×¢²á: 2006-10-21
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ÁÙ´²¼ìÑéм¼Êõ
2Â¥2011-05-31 21:10:14
yensh
½ð³æ (ÎÄ̳¾«Ó¢)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ¹ó±ö: 7.448
- ½ð±Ò: 2333.1
- É¢½ð: 18967
- ºì»¨: 118
- ɳ·¢: 677
- Ìû×Ó: 25063
- ÔÚÏß: 1871.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 446925
- ×¢²á: 2007-10-28
- רҵ: δÀ´Ñ§
¡¾´ð°¸¡¿Ó¦Öú»ØÌû
nakerunner(½ð±Ò+8): ºÃµÄ½¨Ò顣лл 2011-06-03 13:54:36
nakerunner(½ð±Ò+5): 2011-06-09 11:11:12
nakerunner(½ð±Ò+5): 2011-06-09 11:11:12
|
ACAÓ¦¸Ã»¹Ëã²»´íµÄÆÚ¿¯ ½¨ÒéÄúÈÏÕæÐ޸ģ¬µÚ¶þ´Îrejection¾ÍÊǸúÄú²»ÖØÊÓÓÐ¹Ø ÎÒ¸öÈËÈÏΪÎÞÂÛÊǸÄͶ»¹ÊÇÖØÍ¶£¬¶¼ÒªºÃºÃ»Ø¸´ÄǸöÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û¡£ ·ñÔòºÜ¿ÉÄÜÊǸö±¯¾ç¡£ Ò²²»Òª±§ÓÐͶÆäËüÆÚ¿¯²»ÖÐÔÙͶACAµÄÏë·¨£¬·ÖÎöȦ×ÓºÜС£¬ Èç¹û»¹»Øµ½ÄǸöÉó¸åÈËÊÖÀ±Ø¶¨ÊÇrejection ÓëÆäÌӱܻ¹²»ÈçÓ¸ÒÃæ¶ÔÕâЩÎÊÌ⣡ ×îºó×£ºÃÔË£¡ |

3Â¥2011-05-31 21:20:28
¶Ô¶Ô^-^
Òø³æ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 207
- Ìû×Ó: 2
- ÔÚÏß: 11.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2628630
- ×¢²á: 2013-09-01
- רҵ: Ò©Îï·ÖÎö
4Â¥2019-04-02 20:34:02














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
10