| 查看: 10481 | 回复: 26 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
xiaoxiao270至尊木虫 (著名写手)
|
[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 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
论文终于录用啦！满足毕业条件了
已经有12人回复
-
2025年遐想
已经有4人回复
-
投稿Elsevier的杂志（返修），总是在选择OA和subscription界面被踢皮球
已经有8人回复
-
求个博导看看
已经有18人回复
drscut
铁虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 56 (初中生)
- 金币: 2164.6
- 散金: 1002
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 380
- 在线: 190小时
- 虫号: 2575387
- 注册: 2013-08-01
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 电磁场与波
21楼2013-08-29 00:56:39
LT_FU
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 110 (高中生)
- 金币: 7173.7
- 散金: 156
- 红花: 6
- 帖子: 1009
- 在线: 3099.3小时
- 虫号: 1436839
- 注册: 2011-10-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 力学
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
xiaoxiao270: 金币+20, ★★★★★最佳答案, 非常感谢 2013-08-28 10:52:43
xiaoxiao270: 金币+15, ★★★★★最佳答案 2014-02-01 19:28:26
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
xiaoxiao270: 金币+20, ★★★★★最佳答案, 非常感谢 2013-08-28 10:52:43
xiaoxiao270: 金币+15, ★★★★★最佳答案 2014-02-01 19:28:26
| 第一现在审稿人意见的基础上修改，对于审稿意见你觉得不对的地方（也许并不是这样），你可以引经据典，应用你的所谓的少量文章和实验数据，来证明你们的观点是可能正确的，而审稿人的认为可能是错误的。语气要客观和客气。国外的审稿人对于你可以列出事实来反驳他的观点的，不是太在意的，反而乐于接受。但是，你不能上来就说，你错了，你怎么怎么不对，语气委婉些。此外，文章主要看编辑的态度，这样的审稿意见编辑都给你大修，说明他还是比较喜欢你做的东西，所以要珍惜这个机会。根据主编的语气，貌似还要外审，而且不一定送给原来的审稿人，所以，一切都还很远，你现在要做的就是好好修改 |
2楼2013-08-28 10:42:33
交大狂人
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 424 (硕士)
- 金币: 82380.8
- 散金: 8848
- 红花: 69
- 沙发: 888
- 帖子: 20614
- 在线: 2585.2小时
- 虫号: 238619
- 注册: 2006-04-05
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 特殊与极端环境下的高分子
3楼2013-08-28 10:52:26
danrushui777
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1724.7
- 散金: 66
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 442
- 在线: 29.4小时
- 虫号: 364672
- 注册: 2007-05-08
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 胶体与界面化学
4楼2013-08-28 11:00:54