| 查看: 6566 | 回复: 61 | |||
| 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]
征集审稿意见啦~~(不怕没奖励,就怕不参与)
|
|||
[ Last edited by zhtear99 on 2012-11-29 at 23:17 ] |
» 本帖已获得的红花(最新10朵)
» 本帖@通知
» 猜你喜欢
27博士申请
已经有3人回复
售SCI一区文章,我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有3人回复
厉娜
已经有5人回复
售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有12人回复
售SCI-T0P文章,我:8O.5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有15人回复
售SCI文章,我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有14人回复
售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有16人回复
售SCI文章,我:8O.5.5.1O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有15人回复
售SCI一区文章,我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有10人回复
售SCI一区T0P文章,我:8O.55.1.O.54,科目全,可伽急
已经有12人回复
zhtear99: 回帖置顶 2012-12-05 19:48:11
|
研究方向:计算机辅助药物设计 投稿杂志名称:International Journal of Molecular Sciences 审稿意见: Reviewer 1# 1) This paper is well organized and of interest in the field, but some points must be clarified and discussed before it can be suitable of publication. 2) On page 3, line 113: "required empirical potential energy function" must be substituted with "force field parameters" since the term is wrong. A question on page 4 paragraph lines 118-121: How can the authors be sure that the most conformational analysis been made on each of these tow compounds? This point of course is crucial for a correct alignment and thus further analysis. 3) On page 7, another perplexity: How can the authors be sure that the crystallized water are indeed structural for the template protein too? Are there any experimental evidence? I suggest to repeat the docking calculations also in absence of water inside the cleft and tentatively compare the results obtained. This point of is crucial since all the discussion about the molecular interactions is linked to structural water playing a fundamental role in stabilization. 4) On page 11, figure 5: line 322-323: "tubes" instead of "ball and stick". Reviewer 1# Considering the situation that no X-ray structure of human proteasome exists, making good models of the enzyme as inhibitor-bound form help researchers conduct SAR study efficiently. The computational studies in this manuscript almost meet the demand. However, both compounds dealt with in this manuscript are covalent inhibitors. The reviewer would like the authors to state any good reason why only non-covalent interactions were considered in the calculations. Especially, TBA is believed to make reversible borate adduct form to display proteasome-inhibitory activity, and the bound structure should be more suitable to evaluate results from SAR studies on the compounds of this class. Recalculations is requested if needed. On the top of that, the following should be considered. Line 68: What abbreviation MM means (multiple myeloma) should be indicated. Line 101: "selected considered having a similar range" is grammatically incorrect. Line 227: change energy to energetically throuout: Usually, "big" is not used scientific articles like this. Change to large, bulky or other appropriate words. 个人感想:两个审稿人给的意见都很好。两位审稿人比我还细心,我没检查出来的明显错误被他们看出来了(囧ing),而且第二个审稿人对我们做的proteasome很了解。讲一下当时投稿发生的小插曲吧。这家杂志是让投稿人自己推荐审稿人的。师姐说一般都在谷歌学术里搜一下,找几个QSAR方面的大牛就可以了。原因有二:一是大牛很厉害,可以提供很好很专业的审稿意见;二是大牛不会为难咱们这些小虾米。然后,我就这么着,找了俩大牛当审稿人。当时带我做实验的老师知道后,很光火,狠狠地训了我一顿。因为他跟这家杂志的几个审稿人很熟,如果我推荐他认识的那几个人当审稿人会比较保险。投完文章后,我惴惴不安,担心被拒,也觉得自己太自以为是了,没有事先问老师。最后,文章收到了revise。事实证明,师姐的话也是有道理的。所以说推荐审稿人的两种方式其实应该都可行的。 PS:IJMS是收费杂志,IF是2点几吧。我估摸着可能是收费的原因,所以接受率比较高吧。 [ Last edited by zhtear99 on 2012-12-1 at 14:50 ] |
52楼2012-12-01 14:41:40
lxg133298
荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)
-

专家经验: +201 - 应助: 511 (博士)
- 贵宾: 6.494
- 金币: 86441.6
- 帖子: 53492
- 在线: 6509.3小时
- 虫号: 1451437
2楼2012-11-29 16:42:12
3楼2012-11-29 16:47:48
lxg133298
荣誉版主 (文学泰斗)
-

专家经验: +201 - 应助: 511 (博士)
- 贵宾: 6.494
- 金币: 86441.6
- 帖子: 53492
- 在线: 6509.3小时
- 虫号: 1451437
4楼2012-11-29 16:55:23












回复此楼
古可ぷ

