24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

xiaoxiao270

至尊木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 137 (高中生)
贵宾: 1.744
金币: 11275.8
散金: 7133
红花: 143
帖子: 2589
在线: 431.1小时
虫号: 1132172
注册: 2010-10-26
性别: GG
专业: 天然药物化学

[求助] 审稿人一个拒稿一个大修，编辑给大修，求助

如题，两个审稿人，一个及其尖刻，没有一句正面评价，强烈要求拒稿，如下：
Reviewer #1:I regret not being able to recommend publication of this MS in ？？？？, since the structure elucidation of the alleged natural products is not convinging. Also, the biological data are commented in a confused way, and there is not a good correspondence from what claimed in the text and what is reported in the Tables. Either there are blunders, or the authors pay little attention to the preparation of the MS. Therefore, I believe it should be rejected.
另一个好点，说给大修：
Comments: The manuscript reported some new dihydrobenzofuran neolignans, and their cytotoxicity and antioxidant activities were evaluated. Overall, the authors made an interesting and valuable discovery. However, in this manuscript, there are a few problems needed to be addressed:
1. For the compounds 1, 2, and 8, their left benzene rings should be 1, 3, 4-trisubstituted rather than 1, 3, 5-trisubstitute on the basis of the 1HNMR and 13CNMR data. Detailed illustrations see the related reference (Chem Pharm Bull 1996, 44: 1122-3; Phytochemistry 1998, 48(4):719-23; etc.). As a matter of fact, commonly the 13CNMR data of 3, 5-oxygen substitute should be at approximate ?c 157 ppm rather than ?c 147 ppm in this manuscript. Therefore, please revise these structures, and search their novelty again.
2. In the Abstract, "compound 10 revealed .. stronger inhibitory activity.", but in table 4, only the cytotoxic activity of compound 9 was displayed. So, please check it. In addition, since all the compounds were assayed on cytotoxicity test, the data should be given in the table.
3. In "2.3. Extraction and isolation" section, line 13, where is F2-2-2 from? It is not mentioned in this part. Further, in this section, all the sentences "1H and 13C NMR see Tables.." were not matched with the real tables.
4. Page 17, "Table 3" should be "Table 4"
5. Reference 7, "food chemistry" should be "food chem"
编辑还给了最后的机会：
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript, and there are discrepancies with the text, the tables and the formulas that make it difficult to judge the value of your MS. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to receive your revised manuscript and send it again out for reviewing.
现在问题是，两个审稿人提出的最大的结构上问题，我们认为还是提错了（见加粗），并且有少量文献和自己的实验数据作为证据。但是这样明确的驳倒审稿人，会不会导致第一个审稿人的愤怒？文章是否还是主要看第一个审稿人的态度？？我们该怎么回复？谢谢！！！

[ Last edited by xiaoxiao270 on 2013-8-28 at 10:32 ]

24小时热门版块排行榜

[求助] 审稿人一个拒稿一个大修，编辑给大修，求助

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖

【答案】应助回帖