| 查看: 4125 | 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 | ||||
[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» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 SCI写作、投稿、经验 |
» 猜你喜欢
求调剂0703
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿天津大学339材料与化工求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
一志愿华南师范361分，化学求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
282求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
一志愿 南京航空航天大学 ，080500材料科学与工程学硕
已经有10人回复
-
273求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
一志愿085600中科院宁波所276分求调剂
已经有21人回复
-
求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
339求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- The tube was incubated 怎么翻译呢？
已经有3人回复
- 分享今日最新Nature文章：10nm以下金属纳米颗粒的等离子共振研究
已经有371人回复
- 哪位愿做Spectrochimica Acta 的审稿人
已经有13人回复
- 如何回答审稿人问题
已经有4人回复
- 这个审稿意见如何回答（HOMO能级计算方面）？
已经有29人回复
- 投稿时要写一个不受欢迎的审稿人，这可咋写啊？
已经有32人回复
- 审稿一篇4.0的论文，作者感谢了8个基金。不厚道，真想毙了。
已经有23人回复
- RSC和ACS的审稿意见结果什么的是共享的吗？？被拒后重投有什么经验？？
已经有10人回复
- 审稿意见回复了，大家帮忙看看这个该如何处理才更好
已经有3人回复
- 求助对JCED审稿意见的理解
已经有7人回复
- 求助 谁有审稿的经验？给些建议哈
已经有14人回复
- 最近审稿人都休息吗？
已经有7人回复
- 给推荐的审稿人写信，可以吗？
已经有14人回复
- 审稿意见：英文摘要需要重新改写，可以详细些，注意介词用法~求帮个小忙！！！
已经有2人回复
- 编辑发错审稿意见，但文章无进展，如何处理
已经有9人回复
henry835
管理员
- 应助: 304 (大学生)
- 金币: 8912.4
- 散金: 1000
- 红花: 10
- 帖子: 9783
- 在线: 1102.1小时
- 虫号: 478515
- 注册: 2007-12-14
- 专业: 语言学其他学科
8楼2012-03-14 20:49:31
Luckyman2012
实习版主
- 应助: 392 (硕士)
- 贵宾: 2.047
- 金币: 2374.2
- 散金: 14033
- 红花: 49
- 沙发: 106
- 帖子: 9318
- 在线: 512.3小时
- 虫号: 1606693
- 注册: 2012-02-08
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 矿物工程与物质分离科学
2楼2012-03-14 15:43:44
3楼2012-03-14 16:00:21
4楼2012-03-14 16:13:47
