24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

ajxa1546

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1318.8
散金: 2
红花: 1
帖子: 126
在线: 224.1小时
虫号: 594871
注册: 2008-09-07
性别: MM
专业: 生殖医学工程

[求助] 麻烦各位大侠帮我看下编辑是啥意思，一审已经结束了，是不是被拒了呀

小硕第一次写sci,英文本来就不好，老板要sci论文才能毕业，上月投了一个，今天给回复了。麻烦各位大侠帮我看下编辑是啥意思，一审已经结束了，是不是被拒了呀

Dear Dr ,

Thank you for sending your paper for our consideration.  We have now had an opportunity to review it and I am sorry to inform you that we are unable to proceed further with it for the reasons given below.  Please understand that we have to take hard decisions as we receive more papers than we can publish.

With kind regards.

Yours sincerely

Colin Ratledge
Editor - Biotechnology Letters

P.S.  If you use the services of a professional paper writing agency to have your paper written to a higher standard, we would be prepared to consider a new paper from you on this topic.  Please also ensure that your revised paper conforms to the advice given in our Instructions to Authors and Guidance Notes (downloadable from our website).

COMMENTS

x Overall presentation unsatisfactory;

REVIEWER COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: BILE3838

The mechanism of apoptosis induced by flavokawain B has been studied with many cell lines. In this manuscript, An J. et al presented their result with lung cancer cell (H460) and found the partially different mechanism to that one published by the same group (Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2011).  Overall, the experiment was designed extensively and reasonably. The result is interesting but there are some concerns I really hope authors could address them well:

Major:
1. The language was poorly organized. The authors are therefore urged to use the services of a professional paper writing agency to have their paper written to the required standard.
2. Some data were confusingly presented, especially figure 2B and 2C. The figures are conflicted with legends.

Minor:
1. The full name of FKB should be mentioned at the very beginning of this paper (title and abstract).
2. For figure 1, why there was increase of cell viability with low dose of FKB?
3. For figure 2B, the result of western blotting should be mentioned clearly that it is the cyt C in cytosol. The result of mitochondrial cyt C should also be done and presented together.
4. For figure 2C, it should be pCDNA3.1, not "pDNA3.1". and it need to be described well how authors cloned the construct with survivin.
5. For figure 3A, authors should give the information of Bik antibody. Authors did not mention any information of this antibody. I don't think they can get such good signal with anti-Bik antibodies from Cell Signaling.
Since the change of Bcl-xL is one of main points of their result, authors should re-do this experiment. With antibody from Cell Signaling, it should be two bands. And it does exist in cell with two isoforms.
In the legend of figure 3a, it should be Bcl-2 family, not "Bcl family".
6. In the second part of result. Since both XIAP and Survivin were decreased dramatically after treatment, why author select survivin only to do the study further.

The English and grammar is unacceptable in the manuscript and requires a major re-write. The figures are poorly presented and make reviewing the data difficult. There is little novelty or this is not clear from the results compared to previous studies from the same group.

The Editorial Manager is at: http://bile.edmgr.com/

[ Last edited by avast2009 on 2012-4-15 at 15:47 ]

回复此楼