若何答复SCI审稿人的看法

2019.04.17 17:13
2096 13 0

  SCI论文在修改时须要根据审稿人的请求来,在答复SCI审稿人的看法时,我们不克不及敷衍。我本身也是个发表有3、4篇的人了,给大年夜家说说我当时一篇SCI论文的审稿看法,和对待审稿人看法的一些建议。

  我投的那本SCI期刊影响因子是2.918的,审稿人给的看法大年夜概有30个成绩,我本身答复就有4000多英文字。说实话这么多的成绩本身也是很烦很累的。下面就给大年夜家分享实验相干的成绩。

  1.成绩: On p.8, top para, first sentence seems out of place, as it describes an open field but the rest of the para deals with the elevated plus maze. Under 2.3.4, near the bottom of the page, what pulse? Additionally, the way the shock is arranged, being delivered only through the drinking spout, seems peculiar. Wasn't the grid floor also electrified? On the next page, foot shock is mentioned, so I think this was an oversight in describing the procedure.

  我的答复:我给他引了一篇异常经典的参考文献。外面就谈到他们的实验注解,在进高架前,让植物在新颖情况中放一放能进步植物在高架中总的活动性,也能进步在开臂中的摸索性。

  In a quite classical literature that named "Validation of openclosed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat" published in (PMID: 2864480), it mentioned, "Pilot studies had also shown that animals placed in a novel environment before exposure to the +-maze tended to increase the overall activity in the +-maze, and to increase the likelihood that the open arms would be explored". In our previous study and exploration of relative field, we also observed that this "Before testing, rats were allowed to freely explore in the open-field" indeed could increase the overall activity in the EPM as well as open arms.

  2. 成绩:On p.14, full para, why is a novel environment considered aversive? And I don't understand the last sentence, having to do with effects seeming to be more anxiolytic than antidepressant.

  我的答复:这是我表述纰谬,把新颖情况描述为讨厌情况,其实应当表述为不熟悉的情况。这之间差别照样很大年夜的。

  To be exact, indeed, as you mentioned, this novel environment should not be considered aversive. Thus we changed it into "unfamiliar".

  3.成绩: Also it is unclear what point is being made on page 14: "In this study, subchronic exposure produced an anxiolytic effect at the magnitude of anxiolytic treatment, rather than the effect of chronic treatment of antidepressants."

  我的答复:那篇经典文献指出慢性赐与抗焦炙药,急性赐与抗焦炙药,慢性赐与抗抑郁药和急性赐与抗抑郁药,在新颖-克制摄食实验中表示出的效应是不合的。我们的成果不雅察到的是64-85%这么大年夜幅度的降低,注解这个药物发挥的是抗焦炙药效应。

  As for this comment, it is really an interesting discussion. Please see the reference of "The effects of chronic antidepressant treatment in an animal model of anxiety " (PMID: 3137614). In the Fig.1, acute antidepressant treatment did not alter latency in NSFT, but anxiolytic did. Moreover, chronic treatment of both antidepressant and anxiolytic significantly reduced the latency (Fig. 2a & 2b). However, by comparison of Fig. 2a and 2b, you will find this magnitude of reduce was quite dramatic (see Fig. 3), since % of controls of chronic treatment of antidepressant was far more than that of chronic treatment of anxiolytic, as stated in our paper that "Chronic benzodiazepine treatment produced a 64-85% decrease in latency (Bodnoff et al., 1988), while chronic antidepressant treatment only produced a 33-51% decrease in the first latency to eating.". As for our study, we found it can significantly reduce latency to 64%-85% of controls, in the magnitude of anxiolytic. That is what we exactly mean in our discussion. We wish this explanation could make the last sentence clearer.

  以上就列出这几个成绩了,欲望能给大年夜家一些思路。如今再来讲说审稿人看法的建议若何对待。

  审稿人看法很重要弗成怠慢,然则其实不是审稿人说甚么就要做甚么。我们应当作到这几点:

  (1)一切成绩必须逐条答复,不要漏掉。

  (2)尽可能满足看法中须要弥补的实验,满足不了的也不要躲避,解释不克不及做的公道来由。

  (3)审稿人推荐的文献必定要援用,并评论辩论透辟。

  推荐浏览:

  《若何答复审稿人成绩(二)》

  《论文投稿时须要用到的八种沟通信件模板》

赞扬文章 ©著作权归作者一切
爱好  |  13
0/200字
没有更多评论了~
悬赏成绩
给科研成绩设置必定金额,将更轻易取得存眷与答复哦~
  • 1元
  • 3元
  • 5元
  • 8元
  • 18元
  • 自定义
选择付出方法
  • 微信付出
  • 付出宝付出
  • 余额付出

旗下网站

晟斯医学- 临床大夫学术科研生长平台 2014-2019 晟斯医学版权一切
Copyright © 2014-2019 晟斯医学 All Rights Reserved. 立案号:苏ICP备11037034号-5 版权一切:南京孜文信息咨询无限公司