½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
Ò»²ÝÒ»Ãû
|
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¡ãC 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 |
|