| 查看: 2540 | 回复: 12 | |||
| 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 | |||
zwcoooooo木虫 (正式写手)
|
[求助]
论文大修，审稿人的意见我真心不知道怎么回复。 已有2人参与
|
||
|
如题： 基本情况：两个审稿意见，编辑给的大修的机会。 第一个审稿人的意见已经回答完了，下面是第二个审稿人意见，求指点迷津。（英语写作已经找语言公司了，请大家不要纠结这个语言问题了） Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): The so called "nano-specific" toxicity is a discipline that has seen several papers published, yet there seems to be no consensus if indeed this effect is manifested. A recent review in the journal, Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2013, 724-34, titled, "Nanotoxicity: challenging the myth of nano-specific toxicity" by Donaldson K1, Poland CA have challenged this notion. This manuscript attempts to identify a neglected facet regarding toxicity and uses ZnO nanoparticles against a yeast strain. While the subject matter may be of interest, the manuscript is replete with sentence that are not structured properly, and there are numerous phrases and terms that are not clear. In addition, there are several trivial matters such as the formula for titanium dioxide that are written wrongly! Given, the facts that the manuscript is written poorly, and that the objectives of this work are not clearly articulated, and most importantly the fact that this work does not advance significantly (at least it was not clear to this reviewer from this work and who has studied the activity of ZnO) our understanding of nano-specific toxicity, this work is best published in a specialized journal. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有8人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.5.4,科目全,可+急
已经有4人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急
已经有6人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有5人回复
-
售一区SCI文章T0P，我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急
已经有5人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8O.55.1.O.5.4,科目齐全,可+急
已经有5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
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
12楼2016-02-15 08:07:34
zhouqi0903
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 58 (初中生)
- 金币: 3392.9
- 散金: 1179
- 红花: 23
- 帖子: 1102
- 在线: 349.1小时
- 虫号: 2885610
- 注册: 2013-12-21
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 园林学
【答案】应助回帖
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
liouzhan654: 金币+1, 应助指数+1, 应助 2016-02-14 12:21:30
zwcoooooo: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-14 17:26:36
zwcoooooo: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-14 17:27:40
zwcoooooo: 金币+4, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-16 14:23:08
感谢参与，应助指数 +1
liouzhan654: 金币+1, 应助指数+1, 应助 2016-02-14 12:21:30
zwcoooooo: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-14 17:26:36
zwcoooooo: 金币+3, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-14 17:27:40
zwcoooooo: 金币+4, ★★★很有帮助 2016-02-16 14:23:08
| 看了通篇抛开写作因素，主要是审稿人觉得看不出作者有哪些明显比别的方法进步的地方，所以楼主在修改时主要突出你和别人不一样的地方，楼主加油 |
2楼2016-02-14 12:15:05
supen
铁虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1157.4
- 散金: 50
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 78
- 在线: 84小时
- 虫号: 1855058
- 注册: 2012-06-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 电力电子学
|
还是创新的问题，你应该在论文的前introduction的部分对以前的研究有一个详细的综述，尤其是审稿人提及的文章。让他看到你的文章的不同和创新点。 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
3楼2016-02-14 12:43:03
chasingafter
新虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4350.8
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 1533
- 在线: 34.7小时
- 虫号: 4035103
- 注册: 2015-08-24
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 环境污染化学
4楼2016-02-14 12:45:14
