 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
小木蟲論壇-學術科研互動平臺 » 學術交流區(qū) » 論文投稿 » 交流 » 投稿5個月后，終于收到回信了--大修
| 5 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 5510 | 回復: 53 | |||
| 當前只顯示滿足指定條件的回帖，點擊這里查看本話題的所有回帖 | |||
wu3833145木蟲 (正式寫手)
|
[交流]
投稿5個月后，終于收到回信了--大修 已有41人參與
|
||
|
第一篇SCI文章，投稿5個月后，終于收到回信了--大修，時間緊迫�。╫ne week），由于本人沒什么經驗，還請大家?guī)兔⒅\參謀給點指導意見，謝謝啊 Dear xxxxx, You will be pleased to know that your paper entitled “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” is reviewed and will be re-evaluated for publication in xxxxxxxxxxxxxx only after incorporation of the following Major changes suggested by the referee(s) .Please find below the comments and send us the REVISED paper within a week(by May 2, 2009). 老外也有出錯的時候啊 應該是2010年5月2號之前吧。。。。，一共有5個審稿人審稿了。。。。。怎么這么多�。。。。。。。。� Referee 1 Comments: This is an interesting manuscript and allows the reader to see the original data used for xxxx. An important aspoect is that the influence of xxxxxxxxxhas been incorporated xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Although the manuscript is set out logically, it could do with a grammar check from a native English speaker. 第一位專家指出：英語語法要修改，這個沒提太大意見吧？可是��？ Referee 2 Comments: This paper proposes prediction of xxxxxxxxxxxx by a model to analysis previously reported compounds. This is an important topic; however, 1. The manuscript did not give where the model Eq. (1) come from, or how is the Eq. (1) developed? 2. The model is not a new one. The prediction of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx by considering the role of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has been reported in literature (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). 我不懂This is an important topic是什么樣的一個評價啊，后面提了2個問題，第一個我知道該如何回答。第2個問題是我用到的一個因素前人已經考慮到了，我也用了，所以不是new one，那應該做出如何的見解？提出自己的心意嗎？ Referee 3 Comments: I recommend that this manuscript should be accepted for publication after revision according to the following comment: 1) Page 3, line 7: Concerning xxxxxx: Are there any structural features in xxxxxx? If so, describe it briefly. 貌似第三位還比較支持，感謝感謝。提出了個問題，說我選的幾個化合物可有什么結構上的特征，可是我思考了，貌似沒有，但我直接說沒有嗎？ Referee 4 Comments: The paper can not be judged due to experimental, molecular and meritorical problems. The structure of paper and procedures are not clearly described and seen not appropriate. Reviewer believes that this paper is irrelevant as typical medical paper about xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Data in paper mostly are not new, because Authors addressed fully or partially old data (see references 1, 2, 6, 12, 22, 23, 24). In generally Authors repeated data from other scientists. They are not presenting typical experimental data. In this situation it is difficult to discus xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and especially xxxxxxxxxxxx. About above problems they can only speculate. It is difficult to accept study, which are summarized on page 7 line 4 in next ways “xxxxxxxxxxxxx”. No scientific comments from neuroscience reviewer side may be being able to comment this computer specialist. Additionally in paper are grammar mistakes. It is typical paramedical paper. It can be consider in chemical, physical or mathematical journals for publication. 這位專家寫了不少意見啊。。。。。呵呵 感謝感謝�。�！問題還是很多啊 Referee 5 Comments: There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that need to be corrected. The second paragraph in the introduction does not make any sense. The two sentences seem to be two separate ideas that are unconnected. Second page, end of first paragraph: The ‘biological factors’ are not discussed. Methods section, Descriptor Collection: There is no discussion about xxxxxxxxxxxx in the following section. A brief introduction to the methods xxxxxxxxxxxxx should be given. Methods section, Data Collection: There is no discussion as to how the compounds were partitioned into the training and test sets. Furthermore, it would appear from figure 1 that the chemical space represented by the compounds in the test set is not adequately covered by the compounds in the training set. (see, for example, compounds 98, 99, and 108). In addition, there are quite a few small organic compounds represented in the training set with no comparable examples in the test set. A quantitative measure of the chemical similarity, for example, may be informative. Taken together, these factors could bias the model towards the compounds in the training set. Results & Discussion – Development of Predictive Model: There is no discussion devoted to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This is curious, as Table 1 indicates that the values of the descriptors calculated for these five compounds are (with on exception) within the dynamic range of the dataset used to train the model. Proper controls were not carried out with respect to model validation in both the training and test sets. The responses should be randomized (or scrambled) and the model building / validation carried out to ensure that the experimental approach cannot be attributed to modeling noise. Although the author’s efforts to include xxxxxxxxxxxx in the model are admirable, they have not actually shown that incorporation of these descriptors have resulted in a better model. The authors should use the same procedures to generate models without xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and compare the results to their existing model. If the model presented in the manuscript is shown to be significantly improved over these three models, the authors may make the claim that incorporation of xxxxxxxxxxx descriptors result in a model that is a better predictor of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 第五位專家更是給出了很多寶貴意見啊。。。。。頭大啦 麻煩大家?guī)兔纯矗捎邢Ｍ�，希望能中啊。。。。。謝謝 感謝感謝 |
回復此樓» 猜你喜歡
286求調劑
已經有9人回復
-
一志愿南昌大學324求調劑
已經有6人回復
-
0703化學/290求調劑/本科經歷豐富/工科也可
已經有10人回復
-
291求調劑
已經有5人回復
-
308求調劑
已經有7人回復
-
085404求調劑，總分309，本科經歷較為豐富
已經有4人回復
-
壓國家一區(qū)線，求導師收留，有恩必謝！
已經有3人回復
-
一志愿中南大學化學0703總分337求調劑
已經有4人回復
-
083000學碩274求調劑
已經有6人回復
-
304求調劑
已經有4人回復
» 本主題相關價值貼推薦，對您同樣有幫助:
- 文章大修后加了個作者，編輯回信了，讓那個人給編輯回個信，該怎么回啊
已經有10人回復
- JPCC修后返回等一個月無回音，忐忑中……
已經有21人回復
- 論文5個月后，收到大修通知，專家提了很多問題（60多個），還有接收的可能性嗎？
已經有16人回復
- 文章大修兩個月后
已經有9人回復
- 一般大修之后再審，多久能回信？
已經有4人回復
- under review 5個月后, 崔了一下, 大家看看主編(英國人)的回信
已經有53人回復
- 大修審稿結束50天了，還不給回信，第二封催稿信已寄出
已經有9人回復
wu3833145
木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 1 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 5579.6
- 帖子: 666
- 在線: 497.2小時
- 蟲號: 622285
- 注冊: 2008-10-10
- 專業(yè): 食品加工技術
9樓2010-04-24 09:33:15
madduck1981
金蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 0 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 3425.9
- 紅花: 1
- 帖子: 399
- 在線: 81.3小時
- 蟲號: 339806
- 注冊: 2007-04-07
- 專業(yè): 計算機應用技術
2樓2010-04-24 09:04:59
wu3833145
木蟲 (正式寫手)
- 應助: 1 (幼兒園)
- 金幣: 5579.6
- 帖子: 666
- 在線: 497.2小時
- 蟲號: 622285
- 注冊: 2008-10-10
- 專業(yè): 食品加工技術
3樓2010-04-24 09:05:32
zhiyongwang
至尊木蟲 (文壇精英)
- 應助: 269 (大學生)
- 金幣: 48541.4
- 散金: 4759
- 紅花: 26
- 沙發(fā): 3
- 帖子: 25660
- 在線: 1151.3小時
- 蟲號: 897198
- 注冊: 2009-11-08
- 專業(yè): 凝聚態(tài)物性 II ：電子結構
4樓2010-04-24 09:11:53
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 材料求調劑 一志愿哈工大總分298分，前三科223分 +5 | dongfang59 2026-03-27 | 5/250 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 275求調劑 +10 | jjjjjjjjjjl 2026-03-27 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 070300化學求調劑 +4 | 起個名咋這么難 2026-03-27 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 化學調劑 +4 | 愛吃番茄的旭 2026-03-24 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 322求調劑 +4 | 舊吢 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 269專碩求調劑 +10 | 金恩貝 2026-03-21 | 10/500 |
|
|
|
[考研] 考研化學308分求調劑 +10 | 你好明天你好 2026-03-23 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[考研] 085600，材料與化工321分，求調劑 +9 | 大饞小子 2026-03-27 | 9/450 |
|
|
|
[考研] 276求調劑。有半年電池和半年高分子實習經歷 +10 | 材料學257求調劑 2026-03-23 | 11/550 |
|
|
|
[考研] 材料調劑 +8 | 匹克i 2026-03-23 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 調劑求收留 +7 | 果然有我 2026-03-26 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研] 333求調劑 +7 | 87639 2026-03-21 | 12/600 |
|
|
|
[考研] 327求調劑 +7 | prayer13 2026-03-23 | 7/350 |
|
|
|
[考研]
 一志愿廈門大學化學學碩307求調劑
+8
|
y7czhao 2026-03-26 | 8/400 |
|
|
|
[考研] 化學工程085602 305分求調劑 +17 | RichLi_ 2026-03-25 | 17/850 |
|
|
|
[考研] 中國科學院深圳先進技術研究院-光纖傳感課題組招生-中國科學院大學、深圳理工大學聯(lián)培 +5 | YangTyu1 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
|
[考研] 297求調劑 +6 | 田洪有 2026-03-26 | 6/300 |
|
|
|
[考研] 292求調劑 +4 | 鵝鵝鵝額額額額?/a> 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
|
[考研] 361求調劑 +3 | Glack 2026-03-22 | 3/150 |
|
|
|
[考研] 276求調劑 +3 | YNRYG 2026-03-21 | 4/200 |
|