24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

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

harold8

木虫 (著名写手)

木工

应助: 10 (幼儿园)
金币: 995.5
散金: 205
红花: 4
帖子: 1469
在线: 177.6小时
虫号: 79734
注册: 2005-07-11
性别: GG
专业: 生殖生物学

[交流] SCI论文修改意见和建议。

两次修改意见：（供大家参考，我是靠这篇文章毕业呀）
Date: 17 Jan 2007
From: anirep@elsevier.com
Subject: ANIREP-D-06-769 Revision Requested
Ms. No. ANIREP-D-06-769
Animal Reproduction Science

I can now inform you that the Editorial Board has evaluated your manuscript. The Editor has advised that the manuscript will be reconsidered for publication after moderate revision.
The comments listed below should be taken into account when revising the manuscript. Along with your revision, you will need to supply a response letter ('Revision Note'), which is a thorough, detailed response to the referees' comments, specifically noting each comment made by the referees and/or Editor, and describing all changes. Should you disagree with any comment(s), please explain why. In the revision indicate new text using Red type. This will allow recognition of where text has been inserted.
Please submit your revision online by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System for Animal Reproduction Science using the following combination:
http://ees.elsevier.com/anirep/
Your username is: ******
Your password is: ******
You will find your submission record under the menu item, 'Submissions Needing Revision'.
We are looking forward to receiving the revised submission.
Kind regards,
Manager Editorial Office
Editorial Office Manager
Reviewer Comments:
Review: The present study examined the potential of **.The observation which donor cell-or recipient cytoplasm-derived mitochondria distributed unequally in blastomeres with progression of cell mitotic division is interesting.
There are several points which the authors should consider.The authors compared the cell numbers of three kinds of blastocysts which were obtained on day 6 and day 8. The authors should compare the cell numbers of blastocysts on the same day.
2. P16 line 360~382 Did the authors examined the distribution of mitochondria during preimplantation development of fertilized sheep and bovine oocytes?
3. Table 6
This table is quite difficult to understand. The details of the result should be mentioned in the Result and Discussion sections.

Editor-in-Chief: The authors need to make the changes requested by the Reviewer as well as seeking assistance with the revising of the grammar and syntax of their manuscript. The layout does not conform to the specific requirements of this Journal and the referencing listing is incorrect. These details must be attended to if the revised version of the manuscript is to be favourably re-considered.
第一次修回稿：

Re:××××××(Manuscript ID: ××××)
We are very grateful to your and the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modification on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red so that they may be easily identified. We have asked for native English speaker to revise the paper before it was submitted this time. We don’t know whether it has reached to your magazine’s standard. Some of your questions were answered below.
Once again, we acknowledge your comments and constructive suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
Sincerely yours
Here are our responses to the reviewers’ comments one-by-one.
Reviewer Comments:
1. Comment: The authors compared the cell numbers of three kinds of blastocysts which were obtained on day 6 and day 8. The authors should compare the cell numbers of blastocysts on the same day.
Response: We thank you very much for this suggestion. Indeed, timing of the first two cleavage divisions corresponded to the timing of cleavage divisions observed in both bovine and ovine parthenogenetic embryos. However, with every progressive cleavage division, the iSCNT embryos started approaching the timing of ovine parthenogenetic embryonic development. On day 6 after embryo culture, iSCNT embryos and ovine parthenogenetic embryos reached the blasocyst stage. While at this time, bovine parthenogenetic embryos were still at the morula stage. So we didn’t compare the cell numbers of blastocysts on the same day.

2. Comment: Did the authors examine the distribution of mitochondria during preimplantation development of fertilized sheep and bovine oocytes?
Response: We are very sorry for not examining the distribution of mitochondria during preimplantation development of fertilized ovine and bovine oocytes. We thank the reviewer for raising this critical issue.

2. Comment: Table 6
This table is quite difficult to understand. The details of the result should be mentioned in the Result and Discussion sections
Response: Sorry for this confusion. In the revised manuscript, we have made it clear, and have made necessary changes in Result and Discussion sections.

Editor-in-Chief Comment:
Comment: The authors need to make the changes requested by the Reviewer as well as seeking assistance with the revising of the grammar and syntax of their manuscript. The layout does not conform to the specific requirements of this Journal and the referencing listing is incorrect. These details must be attended to if the revised version of the manuscript is to be favourably re-considered.
Response: We must apologize for being so careful. About the grammar and syntax of the manuscript, we have asked for native English speaker to revise the paper. And about the layout and the referencing listing, we have made the correction carefully according to the Instructions to Authors. F Xr\
第二次修改意见：
Date: 16 Feb 2007
From: anirep@elsevier.com
Subject: ×××Revision Requested
Ms. No. ×××
××××××××
Animal Reproduction Science
Dear Pro. ×
I can now inform you that the Editorial Board has evaluated your manuscript, and I am pleased to say that it has been favourably received. The Editor has advised that the manuscript will be acceptable subject to satisfactory minor revision.
The comments listed below should be taken into account when revising the manuscript. Along with your revision, you will need to supply a response letter ('Revision Note'), which is a thorough, detailed response to the referees' comments, specifically noting each comment made by the referees and/or Editor, and describing all changes. Should you disagree with any comment(s), please explain why.
Please submit your revision online by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System for Animal Reproduction Science using the following combination:
http://ees.elsevier.com/anirep/
Your username is: ******
Your password is: ******
You will find your submission record under the menu item, 'Submissions Needing Revision'.
We are looking forward to receiving the revised submission.
Kind regards,
Manager Editorial Office
Editorial Office Manager
__________________________________________________________
Reviewer Comments: Editor-in-Chief: The revised version of this manuscript has almost met the requirements to make it suitable for publication. The additional changes required include: (i) using recognised abbreviations for journal titles for manuscripts listed in the Reference section; (ii) checking to ensure that author manuscript details in the Reference list conform exactly to those required for formatting in this journal; and (iii) numbering each major section of the manuscript except the Abstract。
第二次修回：
Here are our responses to your comments one-by-one.

Editor-in-Chief Comment:

Comment: (i) using recognised abbreviations for journal titles for manuscripts listed in the Reference section.
Response: Done accordingly.

Comment: (ii) checking to ensure that author manuscript details in the Reference list conform exactly to those required for formatting in this journal.
Response: We have revised the Reference list accordingly.

Comment: (iii) numbering each major section of the manuscript except the Abstract
Response: We must apologize for being so careful. We have made the correction carefully according to your instructions.

[ Last edited by nxssw on 2008-5-31 at 04:21 ]

回复此楼