24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4179)
>文献求助 (420)
>虫友互识 (400)
>导师招生 (334)
>考博 (181)
>论文投稿 (161)
>博后之家 (133)
>硕博家园 (122)
>招聘信息布告栏 (117)
>休闲灌水 (106)
>教师之家 (99)
>基金申请 (67)
>考研 (50)
>公派出国 (46)
>绿色求助(高悬赏) (45)
>找工作 (33)

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

letdd

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 3
红花: 1
帖子: 25
在线: 4小时
虫号: 1968620
注册: 2012-09-02

[交流] JPBA 投稿被拒，贴出拒稿信，求指点已有5人参与

Dear Dr. Zhu,

I regret to inform you that, after consideration of our reviewers' comments on your paper (with which I fully agree), I'm unable to accept it for publication.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Please note that a great many more papers are submitted to JPBA than we can possibly publish. The acceptance rate for papers is about 25% and our decision is not a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent requirements.

The Editors hope that you do understand the above decision, and we appreciate your continued interest in the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. We wish you every success when you submit the paper elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

Sándor Görög
Editor
Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This paper is about Identification of major compounds in rat bile, plasma and urine after oral administration of Radix Scutellariae extract by ultra-fast liquid chromatography coupled to ion trap time-of-flight mass spectrometry.
Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in JPBA.
1. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.
2. The innovation of this manuscript is weak and the content of experiments is not plentiful.
3. The Fig.4 and Fig.4 are not clearly expressed, and the Fig.5 should be deleted. It will be nice if you can add the schematic diagram of the cracking.
Based on what was described above this manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of JPBA. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to other journals.

Reviewer #2: I do not recommend the publication of this manuscript due mainly to the lack of scientific novelty and for neglecting the comparison of the authors' method and results with those in the literature. The Guide for Authors of JPBA contains the following restriction: "In determining the suitability of submitted articles for publication, particular scrutiny will be placed on the degree of novelty and significance of the research and the extent to which it adds to existing knowledge in pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis. In all submissions to the journal, authors must address the question of how their proposed methodology compares with previously reported methods."
The authors have missed to make reference to closely related papers such as
Ling Tong, Meixu Wan, Lihua Zhang, Yonghong Zhu, He Sun, Kaishun Bi, Simultaneous determination of baicalin, wogonoside, baicalein, wogonin, oroxylin A and chrysin of Radix scutellariae extract in rat plasma by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis (2012) (from the same university!!!) and
Chung, H.J., Lim, S., Kim, I.S., Bu, Y., Kim, H., Kim, D.-H., Yoo, H.H., Simultaneous determination of baicalein, baicalin, wogonin, and wogonoside in rat plasma by LC-MS/MS for studying the pharmacokinetics of the standardized extract of scutellariae radix, Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society, 33 (2012) 177-182.
Reference has been made to [23] but real comparison was not made.

回复此楼