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

zlqdd

铜虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 162.8
帖子: 26
在线: 32.3小时
虫号: 1411947
注册: 2011-09-21
性别: GG
专业: 生物化学

[求助] 文章被拒了，编辑希望我重投，帮忙看下重投有希望吗？

投了biochemical engineering journal的文章，被拒绝了。大家看看我重投还有戏吗？编辑意见如下。呃~明说一下，由于是第一次投文章，背景部分参考文献什么的写的是挺次的...

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for consideration for publication in the BEJ. This manuscript addresses a very interesting topic for the BEJ. However, in its present form it does not have sufficient novelty or impact to consider it as a significant contribution to biochemical engineering. Therefore, I must reject your manuscript. Additional comments are provided below.

Although this will be a disappointing outcome, I would encourage you to consider submitting a new manuscript to address the issues raised below. If you decide to resubmit in this way you will need to make an entirely new submission. However, in your new submission cover letter you should indicate the manuscript number of your original submission and explain in detail how you have addressed the comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely,
William M. Miller
Editor
Biochemical Engineering Journal

Additional comments:

The authors must directly compare their results for rhamnolipid production for the different process modifications with those reported by other investigators. Specific comparisons should be made in terms of the extent and rate of cell growth and rhamnolipid production. The authors should also compare their results with those for other similar fermentations, as well as for other modeling studies. The authors must clearly describe what is novel and of high impact in their work. The approaches used seem relatively standard and the models used are well established. Why would this work be of interest to readers of the BEJ?

The Results and Discussion section has no citations of other published studies. Since biosurfactant fermentation is an active area of research, I would expect the authors to compare their results with those from many other studies. Surprisingly, only 17 references are cited with 3 from 2007 and more recent. Given the very active nature of this field, I would expect the authors to cite many more recent studies.

Finally, few of the cited references are from the Biochemical Engineering Journal or other journals that focus on biochemical engineering. This will decrease interest in the paper by readers of the BEJ.

回复此楼