Biology版 - 问个 Neurobiology of Aging revision的问题 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h*******o
发帖数: 4884 | 1 文章被reject了，但同时说可以revision.
3个reviewer的comments
Reviewer1: In this manuscript the authors used an elegant approach to
determine the effects of XXX in a mouse model of Alzheimer disease. 然后概
括了我们study 的内容。
This is a well conducted study and the data presented are of high quality
and clearly support the authors' conclusions. I believe that the findings
are important and the manuscript is nicely organized and carefully crafted.
I have only two minor suggestions to improve the paper further. 然后提了2个
小问题，而且还是我们自己的typo造成的。
Reviewer 2:同样概括了我们的主要findings。 Despite the fact that the
manuscript contains potential new and interesting information, there are
several points that need to be addressed
然后要一堆额外的数据 主要是想要我们再加一个不同的treatment组 ， 因为这个
study是个long term 的in vivostudy，不可能在增加一个。
Reviewer 3: Overall this is a very interesting and seemingly well-done paper
. The effects of XXX treatment are particularly interesting. It advances
the literature and will be of interest to many although there are some minor
criticisms/comments/questions about the work that can be ignored, addressed
, or refuted. 然后提了一些小建议，改改文字就可以了
现在头疼这第二个reviewer，基本上是不可能重新在做一个long term 的实验增加一个
treatment组了，想问问看这种情况还有希望能revise过去被接收吗？
谢谢 | h****u
发帖数: 480 | 2
概
quality
findings
crafted.
个
Are you able to use review 1 and 3's comments against review2's? so that
you can talk to editor (on the phone) to agree on all the other revisions
except the new treatment experiments.
【在 h*******o 的大作中提到】
: 文章被reject了，但同时说可以revision.
: 3个reviewer的comments
: Reviewer1: In this manuscript the authors used an elegant approach to
: determine the effects of XXX in a mouse model of Alzheimer disease. 然后概
: 括了我们study 的内容。
: This is a well conducted study and the data presented are of high quality
: and clearly support the authors' conclusions. I believe that the findings
: are important and the manuscript is nicely organized and carefully crafted.
: I have only two minor suggestions to improve the paper further. 然后提了2个
: 小问题，而且还是我们自己的typo造成的。
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 3 关键是你reject那封信的内容，是怎么说的
现在很多杂志一看到要补实验的comment就reject，但是会明确说如果能回答这些问题
欢迎重新投，其实就是个花招减少received 和 accepted 之间的gap就是了
看你的comment都停positive的，即使2也说了potential new and interesting
information，我觉得挺有希望的。不能做就说明为什么觉得没必要就是了，或者做点
相关实验减少下他的疑虑 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
