24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3349)
>虫友互识 (369)
>文献求助 (221)
>休闲灌水 (208)
>导师招生 (161)
>考博 (79)
>考研 (53)
>博后之家 (51)
>硕博家园 (50)
>论文投稿 (43)
>基金申请 (35)
>论文道贺祈福 (32)
>公派出国 (31)
>教师之家 (29)
>招聘信息布告栏 (27)
>找工作 (26)

返回列表

edison88x

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 70
帖子: 2
在线: 5.1小时
虫号: 2633858
注册: 2013-09-04
专业: 脑血管结构、功能异常及相

[求助] 求助文章修回求助（小修）已有2人参与

大家好，文章去年12月份投，这次是第四次修回了，前三次都是大修，在第二次大修的时候也送去润色了（Review #1 要求找native speaker修改的），这次终于迎来小修了。在整个审稿过程中，Review #1比较有包容性，Review #2很严厉，认真，几乎所有的意见都是Review #2提的。好了，介绍完背景了，问题来了，这次小修，Review #2让我改了几个语法错误及句子的表达，也同意publication了，让我不理解的是Reviewer #1这一句是什么意思（加粗部分），是不是也默认可以publication了，少数的语法错误可以在proof中修改？
“ It is just impractical for either reviewer to rewrite this article in totally fluent English.”是在提醒Review #2不要那么较真吗？
在线等大家意见，希望今日就修回给杂志了！
Reviewer #1: The authors appear, for the most part, to have answered the reviewers' comments satisfactorily and respectfully. Reviewer 2's suggestions even on this third submission were extensive, which shows his/her insistence that this article be rigorous, and this effort must be applauded by all concerned. My concerns about the grammatical quality of the authors' answers will likely be resolved in proof. It is just impractical for either reviewer to rewrite this article in totally fluent English.
Reviewer #2: Dear editor-in-chief,
the manuscript "XXXXX" has been revised and improved again and is now ready for publication after the authors addressed the last minor remarks:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The paper describes an excellent new model for scientists to test new therapies for XXX.

回复此楼