经济学家

 找回密码
 快速注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 2145|回复: 3

[经验分享] 【转载】某牛人国外杂志投稿经验

[复制链接]
发表于 2009-12-8 10:13 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
国外杂志投稿经验
(1)我发第一篇E文的经验
      1、有新意。
      2、文章内容逻辑和条理性好,实验结果自成系统。
      3、如果没有直接拒稿,就有希望,要根据REVIEWER和EDITOR的意见一条一条的修改。
      4、我觉得非常重要,找到合适的杂志。有些杂志觉得你的东西毫无新意,而有些杂志却觉得你的文章很有趣。就像不同的女孩子对你的感觉那样。最好找那些边缘杂志,明白吗?当然,如果你的东西确实好,那就直接找公认的、那些牛杂志投吧。

这是我写的一篇文章,投给‘“Journal of Radiation Research”的文章,下面是该杂志给我的回复。 向国际刊物投稿,不仅可以提高自己的英文写作,也可以听听老外审稿人的意见,以提高自己的论文水平和科研思路(我没有贬国内审稿人的意思)。
EDITORIAL COMMENTS(对第一次修改稿的意见)
We have reviewed your revised version of the manuscript (MS#*** , but we still think that the present manuscript has not yet reached to the satisfied level for the publication in JRR. The followings are some points for your further revision.
1) Please, reconsider about your descriptive sentences in the text. ex. The word, "normal", should not be used for the NPC cells, because NPC cells are intrinsically tumor cells. The authors should be more careful about such sort of description in the text.
2) As it is seen in your response to the reviewers' comments , we don't understand that why you didn't discuss about the features of growth and physiological conditions of unmodified *** cells as normal more clearly and definitely in the text by referring other appropriate reports and papers.
3) The next revision should be more careful by keeping the attention to those comments raised by Ref. 3 for your first manuscript. Particularly, more adequate explanation the figure legends and procedures of the experiments, etc.
We look for further revision. Thank you for your co-operation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REFEREE #1
Comments for JRR***-revised version
The revised form has made a significant improvement, specifically in English and data presentation (figures). However, there are a few points still need to be considered before acceptance.
1. The title is recommended to change to "Combination of Suicide gene therapy and radiation enhances killing of ***".
2. Materials and Methods: (p.3, line 5 and line 6) The (--start code) should be (--start codon).
3. Fig. 2:
It is not clear why the authors only show western blot analysis of suicide gene, but not the other fusion proteins, especially the fusion protein of gene, which is criitical for experiments shown in Fig. 6.
4. Fig. 6:
The in vivo tumor regression study was carried out by using NPC cell clones containing individual expressing constructs. The ones showed the most significant effect are animals injected with NPC cells expressing suicide gene, and treated with both radiation and 5-FC. No data have been present for the effect of the HSV-tk and GCV treatment. Therefore, Western blot analysis of the particular cell clone demonstrates the expression the fusion protein should be added for clarification.
5. Discussion, p.12, the third paragraph: The authors say that " ----lowing the dose of radiation and transferring expressed suicide genes to the tumor locations." No data in this paper indicate that the radiation dosage experiments have been performed. Besides, it is "lowering" not "lowing". I will suggest authors add a sentence or two to discuss this issue.
6. Description written under Figure3 and Figure 4a requires either removal or rewriting.
7. Abstract: Lines 1-3 can be separated into two sentences. Line 8: " analyzed by MTT assay" to replace " analysis by MTT'.

(2)这是我第一次向国际刊物投稿。我自己也不怀什么希望,主要想听听别人的意见。结果惨败而归。
刊物是: Molecular Medicine IF:5.032 Editor-in-Chief: Steven Weiss, MD, University of Michigan
                  http://molmed.manuscriptcentral.com/
                  http://www.molmed.org/authors.html
下面是审稿人给我的拒稿意见:

审稿人一: In essence, this is not a review paper. It is an experimental study. The English is very poor and it is extremely difficult to read. However, the authors have 5 human source suicide gene therapy vectors and tested them in vivo and in vitro, with and without prodrugs, with and without radiation. Included is a radiation-inducible promoter linked to a CMV enhancer. The systems are not novel. The only novelty is testing the constructs in NPC cells, although I have doubts about wanting to use this approach in this disease, which is radiosensitive in any case. The cells were transfected and stable expressors, which has little relevance to the clinic. Delivery is still the major hinderance of this type of therapy. Radiation-inducible promoters need to have low background activity and be strongly inducible. This is sometimes achieved, but the vectors used in this study did not seem to be ideal from these points of view. The combination of gene therapy with radiation showed little promise in vivo, above either approach alone. In short, the study does not add much to what is already known and the presentation is very poor.

审稿人二: They introduced suicide genes (five promoter/gene combinations) in a nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell line, established one stable cell line for each of five expression cassettes, and analyzed the sensitivity of these cell clones to the corresponding pro drug and/or radiation in tissue culture and in nude mice transplanted with these cell lines. Maybe something new in this paper is the radiation-responsive Egr-1 promoter they used in combination with these suicide genes in a nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell line (Egr-1 promoter, of course, was already used before in different gene therapy settings). However, what they have done are very primitive as gene therapy experiments. They used only stable cell clones to test the efficacy of their strategy, but there is no in vitro or in vivo gene transfer involved. Furthermore, the manuscript was poorly written, and it was difficult for me to read through. The manuscript has to be proofread/edited extensively.

希望对大家有所帮助。
发表于 2009-12-15 15:48 | 显示全部楼层
try is the key to success
发表于 2009-12-15 16:02 | 显示全部楼层
学习了!!
发表于 2009-12-18 12:40 | 显示全部楼层
好好学习,有道理
关闭

广告上一条 /1 下一条

小黑屋|手机版|南康家具|家具批发|整体橱柜|经济学家 赣ICP备11002034号

GMT+8, 2017-7-26 22:37 , Processed in 0.230050 second(s), 21 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.3

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表