24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

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

yanyy

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 93.9
散金: 102
红花: 1
帖子: 157
在线: 78.6小时
虫号: 1124827
注册: 2010-10-17
性别: MM
专业: 食品科学基础

[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

三无产品还有机会吗已经有4人回复
投稿返修后收到这样的回复，还有希望吗已经有7人回复
压汞仪和BET测气凝胶孔隙率已经有4人回复
博士申请都是内定的吗？已经有14人回复
谈谈两天一夜的“延安行” 已经有13人回复
氨基封端PDMS和HDI反应快速固化已经有11人回复
之前让一硕士生水了7个发明专利，现在这7个获批发明专利的维护费可从哪儿支出哈？已经有11人回复
论文投稿求助已经有4人回复
Applied Surface Science 这个期刊。有哪位虫友投过的能把word模板发给我参考一下嘛已经有3人回复
投稿精细化工已经有6人回复

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:

小论文外审一天就完成了？被拒的可能性高吗？已经有5人回复
文章总是没有送审就被拒已经有25人回复
JMCA被拒，请问有什么杂志可以转投？已经有11人回复
IET论文被拒了，该如何是好已经有25人回复
国内会议论文被拒的可能性？已经有27人回复
求助大家，论文因为查重复率被拒，修改后，还有申述的机会吗？已经有9人回复
投稿被拒多次了，给点建议好吗已经有22人回复
论文被拒，求帮忙看看拒稿意见已经有4人回复
编辑给了婉拒的paper还有大修接收的希望吗已经有21人回复
以缺乏创新性被拒的稿件还有投出去的希望吗已经有6人回复
请问JMCA修改稿被拒，加数据重写后再投还有希望吗？已经有37人回复
论文两个审稿人让小修，一个审稿人拒绝，结果编辑拒稿了，这种情况还有希望吗？已经有41人回复
投稿被拒能否修改后继续投同一个已经有9人回复
请教---- 论文大修后还有可能被拒吗？？？已经有32人回复
论文被拒，但编辑说按审稿人的意见修改后再重新提交还是有可能会接受已经有25人回复
论文被拒了，是修改后重投还是另外投一个期刊？已经有11人回复
文章被拒后重投，被拒的几率是不是更大？已经有14人回复
第一次投稿被拒了，大家帮我看看还有没有希望修改后重投。谢谢！！！！！已经有10人回复
论文被拒修改之后可不可以再投原杂志已经有13人回复
文章初审就被拒了。。。已经有74人回复
SCI论文从入门到精通（第一版）已经有93人回复

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

yanyy

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 4 (幼儿园)
金币: 93.9
散金: 102
红花: 1
帖子: 157
在线: 78.6小时
虫号: 1124827
注册: 2010-10-17
性别: MM
专业: 食品科学基础

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Recommendation: Do not publish.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