24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4437)
>导师招生 (177)
>文献求助 (177)
>虫友互识 (157)
>基金申请 (154)
>硕博家园 (99)
>博后之家 (85)
>考博 (63)
>休闲灌水 (47)
>找工作 (46)
>招聘信息布告栏 (38)
>论文投稿 (38)
>论文道贺祈福 (33)
>教师之家 (33)
>公派出国 (29)
>考研 (27)

返回列表

angel19860820

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 5 (幼儿园)
金币: 14775.8
帖子: 2446
在线: 589.6小时
虫号: 523759

[交流] AB审稿意见回复

analytical biochemistry因为做的太慢，只能投个差一点的杂志，1月底投，今天回复revise。意见如下
Dear **,

Your manuscript has been reviewed by individuals knowledgeable in this field. Although the reviewers were interested in the paper, questions were raised that are summarized in the reviewers' comments below.

Should you agree to revise the manuscript, please indicate the changes that have been made, and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. In order to retain the original date of submission, a revised manuscript should be forwarded within two months of the date of this decision letter.

Please submit your revision online by logging on to the Analytical Biochemistry Elsevier Editorial System:
http://ees.elsevier.com/yabio/

Your username is: ******
If you need to retrieve password details, please go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/yabio/automail_query.asp

Your manuscript record is located in the "Submissions Needing Revision" menu.

When submitting your revised paper, please include a separate document called "Response to Reviews" detailing your responses to the comments of the reviewers. Most useful would be a copy in which the revisions are indicated directly on the manuscript, e.g. underlined or in color. Also include electronic source files for the text and figures that can be used for publication should the manuscript be accepted. These files should include the text, tables and figure legend in an editable format (MS Word preferred) and all figures saved individually as TIF or EPS files.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports **. The concept is worthy of investigation and some important experimental data has been provided on the operational performance of the sensor, including signal response and selectivity. However, there are significant problems with the authors' interpretation of some of the sensitivity and selectivity data and with a lack of clarity in some of their descriptions and conclusions. Specific points for the authors to address are detailed below.

5. Page 8 line 21 ". . . the height (27 +/- 2 nm) . . ." Over what surface area or over how many "islands" was this figure calculated? How indicative is it of the broader surface morphology over large areas?

7. Page 10 line 9 ". . . detection limit . . . 4 nM." This quoted detection limit is meaningless as you have not demonstrated actual detection of adenosine at anywhere near this concentration (your lowest non-blank standard is 200 nM). Based on the error in your blank point in Figure 3, three times its standard deviation would give a limit of detection of about 100-150 nM. Furthermore, this 4 nM figure does not agree with the 65 nM quoted in the abstract.

Reviewer #2:
4) Looking at Figure 3, it seems difficult to see how the limit of detection could be 4 nM. Especially since it seems that the lowest concentration tested looks to be about 200 nM. Perhaps the authors could show an inset to the figure with concentrations up to only 100 nM.
其他问的问题都是咬文嚼字的小问题，就这几个问题比较大，不好回答，关于这个检测线，我是当时发现自己算错了，重新算过结果有些地方没有改过来，这个在回复的时候可以直接这样说么，还是有其他比较容易让审稿人接受的说法。他们说的是对的，是我当时没有搞好
关于用AFM观察表面形貌的，他问的应该是说我看的只是一个片子的一小部分，不能代表整个片子的情况，我是不是要用软件计算出整个片子上修饰物的量是多少才可以说明这个问题？
谢谢

回复此楼