| 查看: 3828 | 回复: 15 | ||||
| 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 | ||||
[交流]
文章被拒 请大牛分析审稿人意见 有没必要argue 已有9人参与
|
||||
|
I am writing to you on behalf of Editor Prof. Alfredo Sanz-Medel. We regret to inform you that on the basis of the reports and comments received from the referees, the Editor, Prof. Alfredo Sanz-Medel, is unable to accept the above-mentioned manuscript for publication in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. The comments of the referees are given below for your consideration. We hope the information provided by the referees will be helpful in understanding the Editor's decision. On behalf of the Journal, we thank you for submitting your manuscript and hope that the outcome of this specific review will not discourage you from sending future papers to us. Yours sincerely, Dr. Nicola Oberbeckmann-Winter Springer Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Managing Editor --- Tiergartenstrasse 17 | 69121 Heidelberg | Germany tel +49 6221 487 8377 fax +49 6221 487 68377 abc@springer.com www.springer.com/abc --- Branch of Springer-Verlag GmbH, Heidelberger Platz 3, 14197 Berlin, Germany Registered Office: Berlin | Local Court (Amtsgericht) Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 91881 B Directors: Peter Hendriks, Derk Haank, Martin Mos ------------------------------------------------- Impact Factor 2013: 3.578 – Ranked 11 by IF and 8 by total cites in the category chemistry, analytical! Comments on your submitted manuscript: 1) Editor Comments: It appears that both expert referees consider that the new contribution of this work is rather low. Moreover, the authors should identify and explain the benefits of their method in comparison with the classical standard additions method, before publication can be considered. Therefore, I regret to say that I cannot recommend this manuscript for eventual publication in ABC. 2) Referee Comments: ****Referee A: The authors report in this paper the development of a new calibration curve calculation method for absolute protein quantification by stable isotope dilution mass spectrometry. The method is based on the addition of increasing amounts of labelled standards to the same amount of sample matrix. This strategy is very similar to a classical, and much less expensive, standard additions approach, but using a labelled standard instead of the analyte standard. The only advantage I find with this method is that, using the reported strategy, the authors work with a relative signal instead of working with an absolute intensity. This is very important when working with an electrospray source due to ionizations suppression effects. However, since the amount of sample matrix is the same over the entire calibration range, I am not sure if this is a valuable advantage over the classical standard additions method. The authors should justifiy the novelty of their method identifying an explaining its benefits in comparison with the classical standard additions method. Overall, the quality of the sample preparation procedures applied in this work as well as the validation approaches are adequate. The English language should be revised and some explanations are difficult to follow. I have found some problems with the crossreferences in the text. Other points: -Page 3, line 27- References numbers are lacking in “Kawakami et. al. and Ohtsuki et. al.” Same for “Achlour” in line 40. Also, “Achlour” does not correspond to any reference of the list. Same for “Michael” in page 4 line 30. I guess that Michael refers to reference 18, but this is impossible to guess before reading the whole manuscript. -P5, line 30- Please replace “determination of concentration” by “purity assessment”. -P5, line 46. Please replace the term “concentration” by “purity”. -Equation (4)- There is a mistake in this equation. Please remove one of the Yh from the first term. -Table 1. A column indicating the theoretical amount added to the sample should be included -Table 4. The meaning of the “Fold difference across minimal and maximal values” is not clear. Please explain better or remove it from the Table. ****Referee B: The manuscript describes an approach to tackle the matrix effect in peptide analysis with mass spectrometry. This is a very common problem in bioanalytical chemistry and many articles have been devoted to this topic. Although, I find that the article contains material that could be of significant value and interest to ABC , I had to re-read the article many times before I could discern the novelty and the value presented in this article. I feel that the majority of readers though might not spend this much time and therefore I request that authors rewrite the manuscript and try to make its contents more understandable . In particular, the introduction needs more context and more discussion about the existing approaches to address matrix effects. I feel that it is not worthwhile to address the strength of this method solely based on the shortcomings of one particular paper (ref 18). Incidentally, authors refer to the ref 18 as "Michanel et al" even though Michanel is not one of the authors of Ref. 18. The standard addition stable-isotope dilution calibration typically employs serial dilutions of the light synthetic peptide that is normalized against a constant amount of the heavy peptide internal standard all built into a peptide-digest. In this paper, authors have reversed the modus operandi by spiking the peptide-digest with various amounts of heavy synthetic peptide. Although I find this interesting, perhaps authors could explain their method as I understand it by using more general language that would be known to a wider audience. In particular, I suggest that authors generate a simple figure that would explain at-glance the proposed method. This would significantly enhance the value of the article. In addition, many results could be condensed and some of them moved to supplementary files. Table 3, for example, could show only a summary results for few peptides while the rest can be moved into the supplementary file. |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 文章评审 |
» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有18人回复
-
基金系统什么内容也没有
已经有6人回复
-
国自然面上复盘~欢迎讨论
已经有12人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有3人回复
-
哪位高人中了，把查询到的截图贴出来让我看看，让我长长见识
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
面上合作单位盖章
已经有5人回复
-
导师吐槽：我怎么摊上了这么个极品研究生！
已经有7人回复
-
申请删除本帖
已经有7人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 求大牛指点～审稿未结束就收到了其中一个审稿人意见
已经有16人回复
- 审稿人一些建议，请大牛看看什么意思？
已经有8人回复
- 文章的审稿意见回来了，觉得审稿人意见有问题，想写argue，请教怎么写argue
已经有9人回复
- 求助大牛们 Remote Sensing Letters这个期刊的投稿审稿情况，
已经有4人回复
- surface & coatings technology这个杂志的审稿周期快不快呀？求教大牛们！！！！
已经有8人回复
- 求大牛推荐哈生态、土壤、环境类的审稿较快的SCI刊物
已经有12人回复
8楼2015-03-05 19:49:14
yangwg8088
铜虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 503 (博士)
- 金币: 12425.5
- 散金: 184
- 红花: 24
- 帖子: 2421
- 在线: 736.5小时
- 虫号: 2419974
- 注册: 2013-04-16
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 常微分方程与动力系统
2楼2015-03-05 13:07:04
3楼2015-03-05 13:36:46
4楼2015-03-05 15:36:15
