畢業(yè)工作了8年，心血來潮寫了艱難的寫了一篇英文論文，已經(jīng)第五次被拒了，都不知怎么辦了？是翻譯成中文投了算了，還是繼續(xù)改了頭英文的？繼續(xù)的話有什么好建議嘛？謝謝
這是最后一次投稿返回的審稿建議�。∠x友們給點意見嘛

PONE-D-21-16128
Dear Dr. XX,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

The referees rose important questions that cannot be solved by a revision.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Yours sincerely,

Pasquale Avino, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE


Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:
In the manuscript entitled "xxxxxxx", the authors reported a method for the multi-element analysis in the geological samples.
The manuscript lacks clarity in many places. There are incomplete and ill constructed sentences that demand correction throughout the text. The treatments involved for the optimization in the manuscript are not clear for reader to follow. It seems that a “technical note” rather than a “research article” would be more appropriate. Please explain more clearly what the novelty and advantage of your approach is, compared to already existing papers. You cite studies on the same topic, so one might wonder why your work was necessary at all. This applies mainly for the introduction but also a bit for the discussion and conclusion.
For the specific comments that demand adjustment, see below.
Title: Delete “simultaneous”.
Line 8. Method
Line 11. Replace 1 with l: HCl-HNO3-HF-HClO4
Line 12. Change the color of the text: The instrumental operating parameters are optimized
Lines 15-17. Please explain the following sentence: Therefore, the standard solution for drawing standard curve is prepared by dissolving simultaneously the certified reference material with the samples, the matrix effect caused by different viscosity of solution is further eliminated.
Line 17. Delete “The elements of” -> “Barium, Be, Co, Cu, Li, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sc, Sr, Ti, V, and Zn.
Lines 19-24. The methods are used to determine the certified reference material of stream sediment, soil and rock. The obtained results are in agreement with the certified values, the relative standard deviation (RSD) is less than 10% except for Ta, and the relative errors (RE) are all within the 16% for all elements.
Line 23. Relative errors (RE) are bias%?
Lines 24-25. The method has high accuracy and allows the determination of 51 elements…
Line 37. Please explain “small self-absorption effect”
Line 41. It is not correct to write simultaneous determination of elements. ICP-MS allows a sequential determination of the elements. Please correct all text in agreement.
Line 49. Replace 1 with l: HCl-HNO3-HF-HClO4, please correct throughout the text.
Line 50. Check the space: “micro，trace”
Line 51. “… rare element were determined by the ICP-OES and ICP-MS”
Line 54. Lack of comprehensive statistical analysis. Appropriate method comparison statistics is missing.
Line 55. Instruments and operating conditions
Line 59. Table 1. All initials in capital letters: RF power, Cooling gas flow etc.
Lines 60-63. Company information should be given for all used instruments and reagents such as MilliQ-system and HCl, HNO3, HF, and HClO4 … as COMPANY (CITY, COUNTRY). In addition, authors should inform which standard solutions were used for the calibration curves.
Line 70. “A sample mass (~0.25 g) was accurately weighed…”
Lines 78-79. Please indicate the internal standard used for the ICP-OES analysis.
Lines 81-83. Arrange the elements in alphabetical order.
Line 84. Calibration standard curves
Lines 85-87. Please explain. It is not clear what was done. Was the standard addition method used? The mathematical formula of the curve and the goodness-of-fit of the data to the curve should be described and acceptability ranges for the parameters of the curve should be described. Linearity should be reported and values of the upper limit of quantification (ULOQ) would be appreciated. The maximal dynamic range (ULOQ/Lower LOQ) should be discussed in comparison to previously published methods.
Line 87. There is no section 2.3 in the text, please explain “procedure of section 2.3 with sample solutions prepared”
Line 90. Delete “Interference and calibration”
Lines 94-97. It's very confusing. Split into two sentences.
Lines 98-102. Delete the sentence. It is a repetition of what was previously written.
Line 103. Selected wavelength of elements
Line 106. Please what does it mean: ICP-MS has good… strong anti-interference ability
Lines 110-112. Delete the following sentence: Therefore, during the analysis by the ICP-MS, the isotope of element, with a less interference, high abundance and high signal intensity is chosen as the analytical element.
Line 124 and 173. Tables 4 and 5: please add standard deviation.
Line 131. Delete the following sentence: “As shown in Error! Reference source not found.”
Lines 148-153. The LOD calculated from 3 times the standard deviation at the blank is probably less accurate than the one using the residuals of the slope. It depends on the performance of the system and not on the preference of the analyst. I strongly suggest using the later, because it will provide a LOD that includes data from the entire measurement range. The classical method is likely to overestimate the analytical performance. In my opinion, both LODs should be presented. It will allow the reader to compare this work with other publications.
Line 151: Please explain “As illustrated in 0”
Lines 165-166. … are all within the 13% for most elements
Line 176. Replace 1 with l: HCl-HNO3-HF-HClO4
Line 181. How is the method rapid and simple? In the “Results and discussion section”, please explain more clearly the novelty and advantage of your approach than already existing papers.

Reviewer #2: There is nothing new in this manuscript. There are innumerable number of both spelling and grammatical mistakes. First sentence in abstract starts with a spelling mistake. If you want to improve this manuscript - you have to write and convince why you taken up this study ? What are the problems with earlier studies?
What extra you did in this study which is not available in other studies so far? In addition, you have to improve your English. 返回小木蟲查看更多