| 查看: 1417 | 回复: 1 | |||
sophia-yxh铜虫 (正式写手)
|
[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» 猜你喜欢
焦虑
已经有10人回复
-
298-一志愿中国农业大学-求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
265求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
297求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
302求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
环境工程调剂
已经有7人回复
-
268求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
311求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
工科材料085601 279求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
301求调剂
已经有9人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 半月前投的JMC，前天被拒了，但是两个审稿人comment里都有修改重投的意思
已经有8人回复
- 大家帮忙看下，这样的退稿意见，修改后想重投该期刊，可否？
已经有19人回复
- SCI被拒论文修改后重投还是改投其它期刊
已经有17人回复
- 大修后被编辑拒掉，重投会换审稿人吗？
已经有13人回复
- 两个审稿人让大修，请教主编据稿后让修改后重投的问题
已经有28人回复
- 投JPCC被拒过，补做几个实验，能否重新投JPCC？
已经有36人回复
- 收到lab on a chip的拒信，可否重投
已经有14人回复
- 被拒后，回复审稿人意见如何投出
已经有9人回复
- sci 被拒后，大修改后重投这个杂志有戏吗？
已经有35人回复
- RSC的杂志，拒稿重投（reject and resubmssion）还需要回复审稿人意见吗？
已经有6人回复
- 论文被拒后根据审稿人的意见修改后重新投该期刊的问题
已经有16人回复
- 文章被拒后编辑建议改投另一个杂志，不想改投是否可以重投
已经有15人回复
- 审稿人对稿件很消极编辑拒了说可重投怎么办
已经有25人回复
- 关于论文修改后重投
已经有18人回复
- 论文被拒，但编辑说按审稿人的意见修改后再重新提交还是有可能会接受
已经有25人回复
- 修改意见很麻烦，放弃修改。改投其他杂志算不算一稿多投
已经有17人回复
- 论文被拒了，是修改后重投还是另外投一个期刊？
已经有11人回复
- 投Journal of applied polymer science被拒了改完还能重投这个杂志吗
已经有7人回复
- 重金求助如何回答审稿人提出的改投它刊的建议
已经有14人回复
- 被OE拒了，可否修改后重投？请高人指点。
已经有32人回复
- 拒稿重投的稿件到编辑那边好长时间了还没给审稿人,怎么回事?
已经有15人回复
2楼2013-01-28 21:29:53
