| 查看: 1387 | 回复: 12 | ||
| 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 | ||
yangjian8792金虫 (小有名气)
一草一名
|
[求助]
审稿人意见
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Yang: I write you in regards to manuscript # JFPP-06-11-0182 entitled "Isolation and Identification of Histamine-forming Bacteria from Frozen Storage of Raw Skipjack Tuna ( Eleotridae ) in China" which you submitted to the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. Thank you for considering the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. Sincerely, Dr. Y. Martin Lo Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Food Processing and Preservation ymlo@umd.edu Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author In the submitted manuscript, authors claim to have isolated and identified histamine forming bacteria from frozen storage of raw skipjack tuna. The title is inappropriate: this is not a study about isolation and microbial characterization, but rather a study about the setting up of a method for histamine determination. This fact is even clearer in the section of conclusions, where authors said to have demonstrated that “the HPLC internal standard by dansylating with......etc.” In addition: • The aim of the work is not clear • Five samples were very few • Ten isolates were very few • How microbiological analyses were performed (APC)? what substrate? Temperature? Incubation times? • How was evaluated the effect of the pH on histamine forming bacteria? Authors said that bacterial growth and histamine formation in test TSBH were determined (how?) after incubation at 30°C for 36h (of what?). • As written, the paper appears very vague and confusing: it should be refocused stating clearly the aim and underlining the importance of the conducted research to the scientific field. The relevance of the present study is insufficiently explained and difficult to understand. • The section “Materials and methods” is too detailed in some paragraphs, but deficient in several important aspects (see before) • The section “Results and discussion” is very confusing In conclusion, the above mentioned problems make other minor details through the text of little relevance to be underlined. In my opinion, the paper is not apt for publication. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author Do the necessary revision as given |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
最新消息：2024国自然下载文件名变了
已经有25人回复
-
太卷了
已经有6人回复
-
审稿问题：为什么荧光激发波长和紫外吸收波长差的大？
已经有9人回复
-
我标书代码变了
已经有53人回复
-
药学硕士找不到工作，打算去做科研助理了
已经有6人回复
-
这个博士要读吗
已经有12人回复
-
审稿人含糊拒稿，还需要回复吗？如何回复？
已经有19人回复
-
初始合伙人来啦！（生物试剂耗材标准品）
已经有16人回复
-
去英国的小伙伴儿都在哪儿租的房子呀？
已经有4人回复
-
请问事业编制和年薪制冲突吗？
已经有9人回复
neoplan2011
禁虫 (正式写手)
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
7楼2011-11-07 12:13:31
10