24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

sophia-yxh

铜虫 (正式写手)

应助: 3 (幼儿园)
金币: 329.2
散金: 488
红花: 10
帖子: 528
在线: 245.2小时
虫号: 1358919
注册: 2011-08-02
性别: MM
专业: 药理学其他科学问题

[交流] 这是改投还是重投呢？只有一个审稿人的意见已有1人参与

Dear Dr. ,

Your paper, referenced above, has now been reviewed by one expert in the field. Based on the comments of this reviewer, we regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in Neuroscience.

We have included the comments of the reviewer below in order for you to understand the basis for the final decision, and we hope that his/her thoughtful comments will help you in your future studies. While the concerns of the reviewer are serious, we would like to provide you with the option of re-submitting a thoroughly revised manuscript for re-consideration.

If you decide to re-submit your manuscript, the revised paper would be considered a new submission and would be given a new manuscript number with a new date of receipt. In this case, please note in your cover letter that your paper is a resubmission of the previously rejected paper, NSC-12-1792.

You are required to provide a detailed, point-by-point response to the prior review at the time you submit your revised paper.

Please note that Neuroscience no longer posts supplementary figures or text as part of published papers, although we continue to accept supplementary material in formats that cannot be embedded in a PDF. If your paper includes supplementary figures or text, you will have to include the material within the paper if it is truly essential for the paper, and omit it from your resubmission otherwise.

Your resubmitted manuscript may be re-reviewed by the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers if this is deemed more appropriate. The editors reserve the right to forward the previous referee reports and rebuttals in case new reviewers are selected.

The critique of this paper in no way implies a lack of interest in this area of research for publication in Neuroscience, and we hope that you will continue to submit your work to this journal in the future.

To update your personal classifications please click here:
******

Please note that Neuroscience is a member of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC). If you decide to submit your manuscript to another NPRC journal, we will at your request forward all the referees' reports to that journal. You will be asked whether you wish for this to happen when you submit to another NPRC journal. Please note that you do not have to indicate to another journal whether your paper has previously been reviewed. For more information on the NPRC, please visit http://nprc.incf.org.

Sincerely,

Dr Etienne C. Hirsch
Associate Editor
Neuroscience

Dr. Eleanor Coffey
Section Editor
Neuroscience

E-mail: neuroscience@journal-office.com

---------------------------
Reviewers' comments:
---------------------------

Reviewer #1: Yu et al. investigated the effect of rotenone on calcium rise in SH-SY5Y cells and found that rotenone increased the level of calcium and ROS, resulting in senescence. Isradipine prevented these effects by activating p53 and Akt pathways. Although these results are not so novel and almost results have been reported, there are some new points.

Specific comments
1. "Aging" was used in tile and text, it is too far to conclude that rotenone-induced calcium rise resulted in cell aging by experiments shown in this study. To examine aging, much suitable experiments should be done. I think that title should be changed.

2. There are so many errors in English description. They should be corrected.

3. Order of figures appeared in the text is not suitable. Orders of Figures appeared are, for instance, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and then Fig. 5. These should be aligned. And, Figs 5 and 8 should be combined.

4. Fig. 2D
Quality of figures corresponding to caspase-3 and cleaved caspase3 is too poor. There is no difference of the levels of caspase-3 and cleaved caspase3 between 0 and the other time points compared to those in Fig. 2C. It should be redone.

5. Fig. 8B
Quality of figures is too poor. It should be redone.

回复此楼