应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » 论文被拒，还有希望吗
281/3返回列表123下一页
查看: 3661  |  回复: 27
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

yanyy

铜虫 (小有名气)

[交流] 论文被拒，还有希望吗已有10人参与


Enclosed are the reviews for your manuscript.

Unfortunately, on the basis of the reviewers’ comments and my own careful study of your manuscript, I have decided that your manuscript is not acceptable for publication in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
The main reason for this decision is a serious lack in clarity of the presentation, and a lack of a typical structure to be expected for a scientific manuscript.


We receive far more papers than can be published and we must make decisions based on likely scientific impact and interest to our readership.


Sincerely,
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
如果连自己都不知道督促，那么你就废了
1楼2015-05-14 23:05:36
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

thanwen

金虫 (小有名气)
直白点说，写作质量太烂了。。
如果没有经过彻彻底底地大修乃至重写的话，重投没有意义，还会让编辑反感，所以先别想接下来是否重投，或者投哪儿。先把文章改好，再想其它的！
把审稿人的意义仔细梳理一遍，把其中的实验、技术部分整理出来，把这部分问题搞清楚，该补实验的补实验。
等所有实验性的问题都解决后，再把文章重新写一遍（可在原来的基础上）。审稿人已经给你提出了很多写作上的问题，这些都要改正，否则写作水平太差的话，实验再漂亮人家也不要。写的时候一定要参照别人有水平的文章，看别人是怎么写的、怎么布局的，同时要向有经验的老师、同学多多请教，写完之后再一遍一遍阅读，看是否通顺，是否有逻辑。
自己写完之后，再把文章给老师、同学修改，不要嫌别人水平差，三人行必有我师，有些问题自己是看不出来的。
最后，视乎文章质量看看投哪个杂志。JAFC作为农业食品类的一区杂志，要求确实比较高，不行的话也可以考虑其它的一些食品类杂志。
赞一下(2人) 回复此楼
9楼2015-05-15 02:16:43
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

匿名

用户注销 (文坛精英)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
yanyy: 金币+15, ★★★★★最佳答案 2015-05-14 23:37:16
本帖仅楼主可见
赞一下
2楼2015-05-14 23:13:44
 已阅   申请SEPI   回复此楼   编辑   查看我的主页
普通回帖

yanyy

铜虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by SilenceGoo at 2015-05-14 23:13:44
希望不大了，缺的东西比较大。。。。。

可以修改后重新投原来杂志吗？
四个审稿人给了很多意见
赞一下 回复此楼
如果连自己都不知道督促，那么你就废了
3楼2015-05-14 23:36:52
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

xiejf

专家顾问 (文学泰斗)

麦麦爸爸爱小牛
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
yanyy: 金币+5, ★★★很有帮助 2015-05-15 00:33:04
这种情况说明编辑也不想要 所以还是换个杂志吧
赞一下 回复此楼
麦麦爸爸爱小牛
4楼2015-05-14 23:42:39
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

小蚂蚁虫

木虫 (著名写手)
★ ★
yanyy: 金币+2 2015-05-15 00:33:39
可以试试修改后再投一次 我们有一篇文章也被拒了现在在修改准备重投
赞一下 回复此楼
5楼2015-05-14 23:58:24
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ssssllllnnnn

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

Translator and Proofreader
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
yanyy: 金币+5 2015-05-15 00:33:21
没有贴出具体的意见。单从这个总结看，你的一个重大缺陷是写作方面，看上去没有任何论文写作的基础，不得要领。
需要和你老板讨论一下论文的框架，论文不是小说或散文，不能随意。
具体内容上就无从判断了。
赞一下 回复此楼
6楼2015-05-15 00:00:17
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yanyy

铜虫 (小有名气)
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Do not publish.

Comments:
The paper shows serious problems in any part and this demonstrates lack of education in writing a scientific paper:

•        most sentences of “Results” paragraph should have been included in “Introduction”.
•        several references do not include what the authors report and I suspect they did not read it.
•        most references are very dated.
•        some acronyms are not defined (e.g. NLs, PLs, MCFA, AA, DHA) or wrong (line 215: C18:2n9cnt instead of C18:2 conj)
•        two softwares were applied (lines 161-163) just to calculate mean and standard deviation
•        the indications of company producing columns and apparatus are absent or not complete.
•        for the human milk samples analysed, the terms “colostrum” and “milk” are used without distinction.
•        several sentences and conclusions are repeated more and more times, are often meaningless, state the obvious and are not worthy to appear in a scientific paper. Below are reported some examples
o        lines 67-68 - This sentence is exactly the same as lines 71-73
o        lines 388-403 These lines report sentences already written in the text.
o        reference 25 is the same as reference 6
o        line 85 – Really the Chinese mothers have 1 week of gestation ?
o        lines 256-257 : “This may suggest that in human body there isn’t a ruminant stomach with ruminant bacteria which.......” This can be really suggested on the basis of the results of this research???
o        lines 258- 260: “Studies of the branched chain fatty acids in ruminant milk fat are a little bit more, which may be due to the fact that its commercialization is far higher than that of human milk” . Is the human milk commercialized in China? Well I never!


For all the above-mentioned reasons, the reading and the evaluation of the results is very difficult. Nevertheless, trying to overlook also the high number of English mistakes, the paper seemed to me not to provide any new and interesting contribution, particularly with respect to milk fat composition.


Originality: Poor
Technical Quality: Fair
Clarity of Presentation: Poor
Importance to Field: Poor





Reviewer: 2


Comments:
ABSTRACT:
Ln 21-23. Sentence „ Rumen microorganizm…” is general information not resulting from the research. The abstract should include information summarizing the results of the presented research.

INTRODUCTION
Ln 34-35. Giving specific results, the author of the research must be given.
Ln 46-50. The statements are not related to the topic of the manuscript.
Recalling of bacterial synthesis of BCFA in the introduction, the results of other studies must be quote (cite research). It should be emphasized that content of BCFA in cow’s milk fat from affects feeding system (e.g. conventional vs. organic, or the possibility of nutritional supplementation). Referring also to the effect of the milk rich in BCFA on human’s health. Results of a study on the topic of healthy properties BCFA (e.g. 13-MTD) can be cited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ln 83-91. Lack of correlation between research colostrum/milk of women and the sample taken from the cow and goat (sampling for testing without linking to each other). In order to work (Line 79-81) assessment of the relationship is impossible. Further compared with composition of women’s colostrum/milk in 1 week of gestation, while not specified phase of lactation in ruminants and number of samples taken.
Ln 161. There is no known number of samples taken of milk cows and goats, with 3 repetition it is difficult to talk about statistical analysis. It is a kind of monitoring of selected FA concentration.

The instrumental methods are acceptable

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This section is too extensive, the discussion should be more specific, recent researches must be cited.
All abbreviations should be explained.LN 186. W mleku wykryto ponad 400 FA.
Ln 190-191. Giving values, researches must be invoke on other researched.
Ln 194-205.In this study a number of PUFA (table 4) is not determined, why then the discussion about their content in milk.
Ln 209. Absorbet?
Ln 220. Human milk contains more than 6% trans fatty acids (dominant content TVA).
228-229. It requires consideration of the latest research. Explain „…in human milk are derived from bacteria?”.
LN 241. Variation in the composition are obvious. In studies relationship is not correlated, lack of consistency between the composition of fish oil and human milk (found only differences).
LN 260-261. The statements must be supported by references, and mechanisms explained precisely.
LN 302. (paragraph 295) The results of BCFA content in milk were discussed previously and now with Table 2. No chronology
LN 295-320. The research of other authors should be invoke by giving findings, directions of influence.
LN 332-362. The results are already given in the table, no need to be excessively repeated. No items of discussion.
LN 389. In the present study has not been proven that human body is partly synthesized by bacteria like in ruminant…?.
LN 388- 399. The summary should refer to the results of research of its own.

LITERATURE CITED
Some (mostly) older researches must be removed and new research must be added.


Technical Quality: Fair
Clarity of Presentation: Fair





Reviewer: 3


Comments:
BCFA are present in low quantities in food but they may be bioactive molecules which makes it necessary to investigate their role in the diet and in humans.

While data on BCFA content in human milk and food has been collected in the past, little information was available on the positional distribution of BCFAs in triacylglycerides.

Due to some missing method information and some deficits in the structure of the manuscript, a major revision is required before the ms can be considered for publication. Details are listed below.

Major points:
Especially the first part of R&D (lines 165-320) is too long and needs to be condensed (see following points).

As stated by the authors, the quantification of fatty acids is based on the GC/MS-SIM method of Thurnhofer et al. Therefore, most information listed in line 165-184 is acturally not new and must not be discussed in this chapter. Instead, a brief description may be added to the quantification mode in section Materials and Methods.

Much of the text l. 185-232 is repeating literature findings. General findings in the literature should be reported in the introduction and not in section R&D. In the results section, the authors should focus on their own findings and discuss them directly with literature data. For this reason, discussions on trans-fatty acids do not fit into this section because they are not part of the study.

Levels of BCFA should be compared and discussed with those in the literature including those reported in reference 12. This paper lists of BCFAs in human milk and similar papers as those chosen in the present study.

The number of samples is too low to verify statements such as those in line 256ff. Please avoid extensive discussion of data where it is not covered by the findings of the study (either due to a too low statistic number of samples or data which is not subject of the study (see also next point).

China is a big country and it is hard to imagine that the selected ten colostrum samples are representative for China. Likewise, the eating habits were not presented. Therefore, generalizing statements are not justified (line 270ff).

The part with the sn-2 positions is the really innovative section of the ms. This method and its validation is only briefly shown. Please provide a better quantitative description how bands in TLC were visualized, how clear the spots were (a photograph of a plate may be added to the Supporting Information) and how reproducible the results.

As far as I know. pancreatic lipase (please provide source) only cleaves FAs until C20, which can become a significant problem with fish. Please check and provide validation data.

Figures and Tables: The number of illustrative items is quite high and the authors should try to reduce it. For instance, Table 1 can be moved to the supporting information section. Figures 2 and 3, and maybe others, might be merged using a,b style.

Minor comments:

Language: understandable but some points should be revised
All abbreviations need to be introduced (see abstract and later on).

Please be consistent and uniform: use on term exclusively for abbreviations (see anteiso-C17:0 versus anteiso-17:0; sn-2 vs. Sn-2 and so on;

Some special characters were misprinted in the PDF(e.g. line 90, 108) – please check the PDF upon submission

Check for subscript (superscript): H2O (line 124), BF3 (line 130) aso.

Add references for statements in line 250, line 272

Line 232: phytanic acid and probably pristanic acid

Table 2: n=10 is only given for colostrum or also for cow and goat milk. This is not clearly defined in the experimental part. Likewise, please provide fat content of the milks (whole milk? Defatted milk?)



Clarity of Presentation: Fair





Reviewer: 4


Comments:
The whole manuscript should be revised and re-written because so many sentences have no sense, some of them are too short, connectives are lack, and the English must be revised by a native-speaker.
As examples:
- 1st paragraph of introduction (lines 29-35): there are 3 sentences beginning with "human milk" instead of using connectives.
- The abbreviation BCFA is introduced in line 41 but it is not used sometimes throughout the manuscript (lines 49, 65, ...).
- Revise degrees Celsius symbol (lines 90, 91, 108, ..).
- Table 3: include the units.
- Table 4 and 6: Increase font size.
- References should be updated for BCFA topic (check for Egge's articles) and for generalities.




Technical Quality: Fair
Clarity of Presentation: Poor
赞一下 回复此楼
如果连自己都不知道督促，那么你就废了
7楼2015-05-15 00:30:06
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ssssllllnnnn

至尊木虫 (知名作家)

Translator and Proofreader
引用回帖:
7楼: Originally posted by yanyy at 2015-05-14 11:30:06
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Do not publish.

Comments:
The paper shows serious problems in any part and this demonstrates lack of education in writing a  ...

问题太多，long long way to go.

Good luck, though!
赞一下 回复此楼
8楼2015-05-15 00:54:12
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

老庄_cool

新虫 (小有名气)
重新写文章再投吧，第一篇一般都很纠结的，可以找三哥菲姐取取经，加油！！！
赞一下 回复此楼
10楼2015-05-15 10:25:13
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 yanyy 的主题更新
281/3返回列表123下一页
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭