| 查看: 7102 | 回复: 1 | ||||
[求助]
cancer letters修改意见已有1人参与
|
|
Dear ***, I am writing to advise you that we have now received comments from the reviewers on your manuscript. Although the reviewers found the study interesting, they raise a number of serious points that do not allow me to accept the manuscript on the basis of how it is currently presented. I am therefore inviting you to submit a revised version of your manuscript, taking into account the comments from the Editor/ reviewers below, as it is likely that your paper will be sent out to the same reviewers again. Should you decide to revise your manuscript, please can you provide the following: * Revision notes - To answer the queries from Editors and reviewers, please can you paste their questions into a word document and write your answers after each of the questions. * Revised manuscript with track changes - Your revised manuscript with track changes added or your revisions highlighted in bold/red. * Revised manuscript un-tracked - A clean unmarked copy of your revised manuscript. Finally, I would appreciate if you could submit your revised paper by Mar 18, 2015. You may upload your revised paper (changes tracked and untracked ) and revision notes here (live weblink) Yours sincerely Professor Manfred Schwab Editor-in-Chief Cancer Letters Dear Author, please note that any revised version of the manuscript that you may re-submit will again be sent to the reviewers for final inspection. Further consideration of the manuscript will depend on their satisfaction. It is advisable, therefore, that you revise the manuscript in a very careful way. Please note also that it is policy of Cancer Letters to allow only one round of revision. Therefore, in the re-submission a final decision will be reached. Also, please make sure your manuscript is in line with formal Cancer Letters design. To avoid long delays in manuscript processing, we request that manuscripts must be vigorously adjusted to Cancer Letters formal design, in addition to responding to all Reviewers comments. Please pay particular attention to Chapter numbering and references style. Please note that any revised version not in line with journal design will again be returned for further corrections. In general, it is always advisable to inspect author instructions before submitting a manuscript. http://ees.elsevier.com/can/ or http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/506050/description#description On this website, you will also be guided to a free sample issue for inspection of manuscript design. Finally, the manuscript contains too many typographical and language errors. You are advised to seek the assistance of a professional manuscript editing service, such as offered by Elsevier Publisher http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/authorservices or San Franciso Edit http://www.sfedit.net/ Please read the following: Why Have Your Manuscript Professionally Edited? It increases your chances of being published. "There is a clear indication that badly written articles correlate with a high rejection rate." "On equal scientific merit, a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted." R. Coates, B. Sturgeon, J. Bohannan, and E. Pasini Cardiovascular Research, February 2002 "Factors that caused most problems were poor use of English and careless preparation of the manuscript." D.R. Radford, L. Smillie, R.F. Wilson, and A.M. Grace British Dental Journal, October 1999 In case of a re-submission of the manuscript, a certificate issued by the editing service must be entered as a supplementary file. Some information may also be obtained from this site http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/trainingwebcasts Please take this item rather serious, we increasingly Reject manuscripts that do not follow good language and grammar standards. Please do not re-submit before these problems have been corrected. In your response letter, you are requested to specifically outline in which way you have dealt with the language problems. Insufficient corrections inevitably will result in a final Rejection of the manuscript. The Editor Reviewer 1 This manuscript presents interesting novel findings relating to a potential role of PLC3 in prostate cancer cell growth. The study spans patient specimens, cell lines and adenoviral transfections. The methodologies presented are adequate and include immunochemistry, MTT, clonogenic assays, flowcytometry, RT-PCR and western blotting. The interaction between PLC3 and both Notch and AR are presented. The manuscript needs to be revised in relation to the quality of the english language by a professional editing service. Throughout the results need to be presented in a more precise manner - instead of saying "increase", please provide actual numbers and associated p values. The link between PLC3, Notch and AR is not very clear and this should be better presented in the manuscript. Why look at notch-1 in particular? why look at both Notch and AR? The analysis of immunostaining scoring is confusing - why not just relate what was positive and what was negative since this is the end point that was used for analysis? In the result section it is not clear as to why YAP1 was measured? Avoid general background statements and discussion speculations in the results section the experiments relating to AR are unclear - this needs to be written to clearly identify the relationships under investigation. why was adDLL1 used for, what was it expected to do etc.. 以上就是所有内容，修回意见就是从“reviewer 1”下面的全部内容吗？？审稿人一般是三个，为什么这里只有一个？而最后以“etc..”结尾，是“等等”的意思，那么后面是不是还有内容没写完？？？！！！ |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 投稿 |
» 猜你喜欢
投稿Elsevier的Neoplasia杂志，到最后选publishing options时页面空白，不能完成投稿
已经有22人回复
-
申请26博士
已经有5人回复
-
职称评审没过，求安慰
已经有22人回复
-
垃圾破二本职称评审标准
已经有15人回复
-
EST投稿状态问题
已经有7人回复
-
毕业后当辅导员了，天天各种学生超烦
已经有4人回复
-
聘U V热熔胶研究人员
已经有10人回复
-
求助文献
已经有3人回复
-
投稿返修后收到这样的回复，还有希望吗
已经有8人回复
-
三无产品还有机会吗
已经有6人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- PHYLOGENETICS
已经有8人回复
- IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters修改稿求助
已经有17人回复
- 投materials letters 昨天技术审查给我结果，修改后忘了在cover letter写上修改说明了
已经有15人回复
- Tribology letters 投稿
已经有3人回复
- journal of hazardous materials 大修后under review时间变化问题
已经有6人回复
- MATERIALS LETTERS 被拒后能否按照审稿人的意见修改后再次投稿？
已经有25人回复
- Materials Letters投稿一周后返回技术审查意见，不知道怎么修改，求高手指教
已经有8人回复
- materials letters修回后With Editor
已经有23人回复
- materials letters技术审查没过，重投写的修改说明怎么提交啊，急
已经有11人回复
- Materials Letters修改之后字数超了，怎么办
已经有5人回复
- materials letters 修改求助
已经有3人回复
- IET Electronics Letters 审稿被拒，有修改重投的可能吗？
已经有9人回复
- Optics Letters返回两个审稿意见，一个不用修改直接接收，一个大改，编辑让重投。。
已经有23人回复
- Optics Letters 修改稿求助~~~
已经有7人回复
- 收到Pattern recognition letters的comments了，关于修改后的问题
已经有12人回复
- cancer letters 需要 with editor多久啊？
已经有16人回复
- 请问有投过cancer letters 的大侠么？
已经有4人回复
- Materials Letters 修改稿投稿问题
已经有11人回复
- catalysis letters 要求的审稿人怎么写
已经有3人回复
- materials letters 修改稿可以超过8页么？？？
已经有7人回复
- Materials Letters大家看看修改提交后两次返回这样的
已经有5人回复
- 投过Materials Letters的虫友，求助技术审查的修改！
已经有16人回复
- 求助：怎么样找审稿人？cancer letters
已经有4人回复
ssssllllnnnn 
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
Translator and Proofreader
- 应助: 452 (硕士)
- 金币: 31580.9
- 红花: 100
- 帖子: 7681
- 在线: 19966.6小时
- 虫号: 3328089
- 注册: 2014-07-17
- 专业: 肿瘤发生
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
年末: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助 2015-03-01 10:51:16
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
年末: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助 2015-03-01 10:51:16
|
是否只有一个审稿人不知道，你可以发信具体问一下。 但就这个审稿人的意见而言，显然没有什么具体大问题，但这些含糊、模棱两可的问题对你来说反而是个不小的挑战。 我的印象是，你呈现了一些具体数据的改变情况（PLC3、AR、Notch1、YAP1、Dll1等等），特别是PLC3、AR及Notch1间的相互作用（physical and functional interactions？），因为这些基因不都在同一个pathway中，所以相互的关系可能存在不清楚的情况，所以审稿人觉得为什么会把这些不同的基因联络在一块？初衷是什么？有机的逻辑关系在哪？ 我想这个问题可能来自两方面：一是审稿人对相关领域不一定非常熟悉，所以产生这种疑问；二是你在写作时没能处理、展现和这些基因间的可能逻辑关系，特别是你做这些不同基因的考量（因为不可能随便做一些基因的，一定是有原因的）。如何把这方面写好是体现你掌控大局、对课题的完全理解的水平和能力。当然，有些可能不容易写好，因为目前确实缺少这方面的资料，但至少把你们做这些东西的原委说清楚就好了。 从结果上看，这些基因或者说不同的pathways之间存在某种cross－talk，在讨论时就要再回过头来重点讨论这方面的问题，而不是一些泛泛的讨论。 我感觉这是审稿人所想知道的。 |
2楼2015-02-25 23:17:03