| 查看: 4019 | 回复: 22 | |||
[交流]
大家帮看一下这个审稿意见棘手不，谢谢了。
|
|||
|
主编 给的大修，一审只用了20天。 Dear Mr. --, We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "--", which you submitted to ---. Based on the advice received, I have decided that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate major revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer comments which can be found below, and submit a list of responses to the comments. You are kindly requested to also check the website for possible reviewer attachment(s). In order to submit your revised manuscript, please access the following web site: ----- We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript before 05 Oct 2013. With kind regards, ----- Editor in Chief COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: Reviewer #1: General comment: This is an interesting study on the acaricidal effects -----. However, all sections of the manuscript need to be revised. The English should be completely revised. More detailed comments are reported below. Abstract: The Abstract is too long and should be considerably reduced. Introduction: Line 39 page 3: Chorioptes species can infest also outer ear canals and the face of ungulates (see Gete Hestvik et al. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2007, 49:21; http://entomology.cornell.edu/extension/vet/aid/cow/mites.cfm); Lines 56-59 page 3: the name of these acaricidal compounds should be written in lowercase; Lines 20-37 page 4: this part should be shortened by including only the biological activities of --- and the related references; Line 42 page 4: Replace -- with --; Materials and methods: Lines 28-45 page 5: Since petroleum has a strong acaricidal activity, are the authors sure that all petroleum ether was evaporated from the extract? Lines 9-17 page 6: the number and the date of the experimental protocol approved by an animal welfare committee is lacking; Lines 29-59 page 6: in many cases the same methods were used in the different studies reported in the references of this section; Lines 20-56 page 7: the method used to evaluate the number of mites/animal is incorrect, in fact the number of mites/cm2 of a same infected area/animal should be calculated. In addition, differently by what stated by the authors, parameters used for the evaluation of the reduction of mite number are not reported in Table 1. Line 1 page 8: replace "preliminary analyze the principal active compounds in the petroleum-ether E. adenophorum extract" with "preliminary evaluation of the principal components of E. adenophorum petroleum-ether extract". Results: Lines 45-59 page 8: since from results obtained in this study the in vitro acaricidal activity of -- ethanol thermal circumfluence extract appears higher than that of the -- petroleum-ether extract (see also Lines 9-26 page 9), why the latter and not the former was chosen to evaluate the in vivo acaricidal activity of ---? Lines 12-28 page 10: the study would have been much more interesting and scientifically correct if the authors had identified these main constituents. Discussion Lines 47-53 page 10: the authors are really sure that the antibiotics are effective for the treatment of chorioptic mange? Line 59 page 10: the authors are really sure that this extract is environmentally-friendly? For example, natural pyrethrum-based acaricides are not so environmentally-friendly! In any case, a reference is needed for this statement. References: References should be completely revised both in the text and in the Reference list. In general, an excessive number of references have been reported and should be reduced, limiting to one or two more significant and recent references per point. In addition, in many cases references reported in the text are lacking in the reference list (see Brien, 1999 and Wang et al., 2012) or they are wrongly reported (see Silvia et al., 2010). Moreover, the references with a same first author in the same year have not been distinguished by using the letters of the alphabet (both in the text and in the reference list, see Rehbein et al., 2003). Furthermore, in the Reference list the name of the first authors are not reported in alphabetic order, nor the references with the same first author are in chronological order. Finally, the names of genus and species are not in italics. Tables: Table 1 and Table 5 might be merged in a single Table. Figures: Figure 1 is not necessary. The legend of the Figure 2 is not self-explanatory. COMMENT FROM THE EDITOR: NORMALLY A MANUSCRIPT WITH THIS MANY CONCERNS IS REJECTED, BUT THERE ARE SOME POSITIVE ASPECTS, AND IF THESE CONCERNS ARE PROPERLY WE WOULD CONSIDER PUBLICATION 1. AS NOTED BY THE REFEREE, AT THE TOP OF THE LIST IS A COMPLETE RE-WRITE OF THE MANUSCRIPT BY AN EXPERT IN ENGLISH, PRFERRABLY WITH A SCIENCE BACKGROUND. IF THIS IS NOT DONE WE WILL CEASE PROCESSING THE MANUSCRIPT FURTHER. THUS, PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THE MANUSCRIPT UNLESS THE ENGLISH IS FIXED. 2. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE REFEREE’S COMMENTS IN A POINT-BY-POINT MANNER. IT HELPS IF YOU WRITE THE WORD "RESPONSE" (IN CAPITAL LETTERS) AFTER EACH COMMENT BY THE REFEREE, AND THEN ADD YOUR RESPONSE. 3. SINCE ANIMALS WERE USED IN THIS WORK, IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT FROM THE BODY/COMMITTEE THAT OVERSEES AND GIVES APPROVAL FOR USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH AT YOUR INSTITUTION . WITHOUT SUCH A STATEMENT WE CANNOT CONSIDER PUBLICATION. THIS CAN BE PLACED IN THE "MATERIALS AND METHODS" SECTION 4. THE PUNCTUATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE AUTHOR CITATIONS IN THE BODY OF THE MANUSCRIPT AND IN THE REFERENCE SECTION DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH FORMAT. FOR THIS I WILL SEND A SEPARATE EMAIL WITH AN ATTACHED PAGE FROM THE JOURNAL FOR AN EXAMPLE OF THE STYLE TO BE USED. 5. SOME ENTRIES IN THE REFERENCE SECTION HAVE THE et al. DESIGNATION. ALL AUTHORS MUST BE INCLUDED 6. AS POINTED OUT BY THE REVIEWER, THERE ARE TOO MANY REFERENCES.THESE SHOULD BE REDUCED TO INCLUDE THOSE THAT ARE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WORK 7. ALL SCIENTIFIC NAMES MUST BE IN ITALICS |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有16人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有10人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有3人回复
-
怎么查啊
已经有5人回复
-
范进中举一文的中心思想
已经有10人回复
-
我不理解！
已经有13人回复
-
2026年的国家社科基金项目通讯评审的新规则与新动向、新挑战
已经有9人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有25人回复
-
2026年8月25日国自然放榜前突然收到列入评审专家邮件，有关系吗？
已经有28人回复
-
能否退出参与的面上项目解除限项
已经有26人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- SSCI大修后再送另一审稿人被拒，请大家帮看一下意见
已经有32人回复
- 第一次遇到棘手的审稿意见，难缠啊
已经有61人回复
- materials letters 审稿意见大家帮忙看一下啊，谢谢
已经有17人回复
- 电子与信息学报回来的一个意见，现在已经辗转到第四个审稿专家了，大家帮忙看看
已经有28人回复
- 大家帮我看看《SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences 》的审稿意见吧
已经有12人回复
- 投Applied Optics返回审稿意见，恳请各位看看给点意见
已经有11人回复
- 大修后，审稿人提出了一个图的问题，怎么解释啊？
已经有82人回复
- 大家帮忙看看这个审稿过程是啥意思？
已经有9人回复
- SCI审稿意见回来了，编辑给的moderate revision，麻烦大家帮分析一下，有BB
已经有28人回复
- 投稿有答复了，些许激动请大家帮忙看看，谢谢大家！（在13楼增加第二封审稿意见）
已经有32人回复
- 专家审稿意见，请大家帮忙分析！
已经有5人回复
- 大家帮我分析一下material and design的审稿意见，录用几率大不？
已经有24人回复
- 【求助】请大家帮我看看Applied Catalysis B 的审稿意见吧，谢谢啦
已经有14人回复
- 文章的审稿意见，大家帮忙看看！
已经有6人回复
- 大家帮忙看这样的审稿意见还有必要改吗，还是改投别的期刊呀！
已经有23人回复
- 审稿意见，大家帮忙看看
已经有8人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看如何回复审稿意见
已经有4人回复
- 【求助】审稿意见大家帮忙看看，急呀！
已经有8人回复
- 论文一审回来了，有一些审稿意见，请大家帮我看看是什么意思。
已经有5人回复
- 审稿意见回来，一个审稿人让据，编辑说大修，大家帮我看看希望大不
已经有24人回复
» 抢金币啦！回帖就可以得到:
-
再中一个面上，散金币5000
+5/4080
-
感恩，金币虽然不多，全部散尽，感恩
+1/316
-
面上中啦
+2/179
-
有幸中面上，特来还愿
+5/150
-
面上得中，散金
+1/67
-
面上中了
+1/63
-
散金币
+1/50
-
材料微缺陷表征之正电子湮没寿命谱
+1/42
-
悉尼科技大学（QS 第87）数据科学/AI招收2027年秋季入学全奖及CSC博士生
+1/26
-
西南交通大学高速列车服役安全与冲击防护创新研究团队招收2027级硕士研究生
+1/13
-
项目助理招聘启事
+1/12
-
香港理工大学陈子斌课题组诚招博士生（2027）
+1/11
-
北京理工大学数据流体团队诚聘博士后
+1/11
-
香港城市大学分子电子学方向招收2027年秋季入学博士生
+1/8
-
南京大学 智能驱动与感知材料实验室 诚招申请考核博士生/科研助理/博士后
+1/4
-
重大突破！酶法合成破解生物法DNA合成原料“卡脖子”难题
+1/4
-
【即将截止】东北大学理学院 力学 李健组招2027级保研
+1/3
-
【科研实践合作】邀请老师带学生完成一次严谨的科学表达
+1/2
-
南方医科大学深圳医院陈烨/余涛教授课题组联合培养博士后招聘
+1/2
-
量子物理团队招收博士生与博士后
+1/1
7楼2013-08-09 23:10:33
3楼2013-08-09 22:55:57
★
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
 本帖仅楼主可见 |
9楼2013-08-09 23:39:31
10楼2013-08-09 23:39:41
12楼2013-08-09 23:48:49
13楼2013-08-10 00:02:23
14楼2013-08-10 00:05:55
16楼2013-08-10 00:25:33
17楼2013-08-10 15:37:34
18楼2013-08-11 08:33:59
19楼2013-08-11 08:34:13
21楼2013-08-22 16:15:31
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
22楼2013-08-22 16:18:25
简单回复
2013-08-09 22:52
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2013-08-09 22:57
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2013-08-09 22:59
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
fenda6楼
2013-08-09 23:10
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
2013-08-09 23:37
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
飞行鸟11楼
2013-08-09 23:41
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
graduate730315楼
2013-08-10 00:05
回复
lulixia020楼
2013-08-22 15:09
回复
nx8011(金币+1): 谢谢参与
yuguanggui23楼
2015-05-17 18:12
回复
投票:
