| 查看: 3553 | 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
伙伴们，祝我生日快乐吧
已经有25人回复
-
311求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
0703一志愿211 285分求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
070300化学学硕求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
283求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
中科院材料273求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
085600调剂
已经有6人回复
-
0703化学调剂，求各位老师收留
已经有8人回复
-
070303一志愿西北大学学硕310找调剂
已经有8人回复
-
085600材料与化工 求调剂
已经有14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:
-
天津工业大学航空航天博士招生
+1/35
-
南开大学罗景山教授课题组招聘博士后（光/电催化、钙钛矿光伏方向）
+2/34
-
中山大学院士团队微纳器件、脑机接口方向博士招生、博后招聘
+1/27
-
华南师范大学（211）博士招生- 电子、自动化、机械、生物学、物理相关专业
+1/25
-
医学327分专硕调剂
+1/16
-
北京某研究院生物化学与分子生物学相关专业申请考核制博士招生（春季）
+1/15
-
2026年上海大学王亮课题组招收电催化或光催化研究背景的博士生
+2/10
-
上海科技大学物质学院招收有机化学方向2026级工程博士
+1/7
-
课题组招收环境及相关专业调剂硕士研究生（欢迎优秀学生加入）
+1/7
-
教育部长江学者和创新团队发展计划”入选团队招收 材料，化学与化工博士研究生
+1/7
-
哈尔滨工业大学（深圳）招收2026年入学电化学能源材料博士
+1/6
-
福建师范大学 院士团队 招2026级博士1名
+1/5
-
请问为什么我的贴子自动到“已删除的主题”里而没有被发布？
+1/5
-
上海师范大学化学与材料科学学院任新意副研究员招收调剂学生3-4名（有机化学专业）
+1/5
-
南方科技大学生命科学学院基础免疫与微生物学系招收博士后
+1/5
-
新加坡国立大学刘小钢课题组招聘博士后
+1/5
-
首次招收资格，招收工科调剂！
+1/3
-
重庆交通大学山区桥梁及隧道工程国家重点实验室——Smart Concrete Lab招生
+1/2
-
福建师范大学国家级人才团队招收2026年调剂的硕士研究生若干名
+1/2
-
澳大利亚科学院院士Prof.Gordon Wallace, University of Wollongong 全奖博士机会
+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
