[交流] [求助]如何处理这样的审稿意见：The study is descriptive in nature 已有8人参与

2月底投了一篇文章到JBC，审稿很快，半个月就给出审稿结果了，可是令人很纠结，编辑并没有拒掉，而是希望改后重投（declined and resubmitted）。我仔细看了两个审稿人的意见，第二个审稿人的意见比较具体，而且大多是写作方面的，还比较能够针对性地修改；但第一个审稿人就只有一句话The study while interesting is descriptive in nature.让人很是抓狂。由于编辑已告知再投时需要在cover letter中详细说明针对审稿人提出的意见的修改情况，现在不知道该如何对这样的审稿意见做出回复，恳请高人给出意见。 下面附上审稿信原文： Your manuscript has been reviewed by the Editorial Board.   Unfortunately, the decision was made to decline the manuscript in its current form. One reviewer indicates that the study is too descriptive and the other finds numerous items that need attention. If you can address the issues raised, I would be willing to consider a revised paper. Note that no guarantee of acceptance of the revised manuscript is implied. Reviewer 1 COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: The study while interesting is descriptive in nature.   Reviewer 2 COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: Manuscript No: JBC/2012/356428 Comments to the authors: The manuscript reports that YCP selectively promotes the activation of B cells through Toll-like receptor 2 and Toll-like receptor 4. The authors presented experimental evidence to show that YCP binds to TLR2 and TLR4 of B cell, activates a serial events of signaling pathways including p38, ERK, JNK, and NF-κB , which eventually leads to the activation of B cell as indicated by proliferation and IgM production. The experiments are designed reasonable and well down, the findings are significant. The manuscript needs revision: 1. It seems to me that the “EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES” part is too wordy. 2. I recommend authors to re-write the ELISA-paragraph. 3. In the figure 2-A, each panel should also includes the same field panel with normal light observation to show all the cells in the field. 4. Let the editor to decide if the figure 6 is necessary, or in other words, if there is enough information to construct the signaling pathway?   5. English language should be checked carefully for accurate and unambiguous expressions.

回复此楼