Comments to Authors

合集下载

审稿意见

Dear Mr Liu,I write you in regards to manuscript # JPR-2013-276 entitled "Effect of Light and N:P Supply Ratio on Nutrient Drawdown Patterns and Elemental Ratios in Batch-Cultured Chlorella sp." which you submitted to the Journal of Plankton Research.I am very sorry to have to say that in view of the criticisms of the reviewers found at the bottom of this letter and in the attached file, your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in the Journal of Plankton Research.Summarizing, the Associate editor advises that all three reviewers recommend the manuscript be rejected and have significant concerns regarding the definition/description of major concepts and the experimental design and presentation of results. The AE hopes the authors find the reviews useful for a revision for another venue.I realise that this will be a disappointing outcome for you, but you will see that the specialist reviewers raise some fundamental concerns about your study. It may well be that by doing further work and presenting it in accordance with the reviewer's comments you might consider publishing the work at some point in the future.Thank you for considering the Journal of Plankton Research for the publication of your research. I wish you every success in finding an alternative forum for publication for this manuscript. JPR will not consider a revised version or any similar submission in future.I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you or your colleagues from the submission of future manuscripts.Yours sincerely,Dr Roger HarrisEditor-in-Chief, Journal of Plankton Researchjpr.editorialoffice@JPR Impact Factor has risen again to 2.435 in 2012; average interval from submission to first decision - 4 weeksReviewer(s)' Comments to Author:Reviewer: 1Comments to the AuthorManuscript: JPR-2013-276Title: Effect of light and N:P supply ratio on nutrient drawdown patterns and elemental ratios in batch-cultured Chlorella sp.Authors: Liu, J., Li, Z., Guo, J., Fang, F. & Yang, M.General comments:The authors investigated the impact of changes in N:P supply ratios and light on the N and P drawdown and C:N:P stoichiometry in Chlorella sp. Understanding the coupling between N and P limitation and elemental stoichiometry, including modulation by light availability, is interesting, though not new. The manuscript lacks an explanation on the novelty of the findings, and it is not clear what this study exactly adds to our understanding. More importantly, I have serious doubts on the applied experimental set-up, the results are very poorly presented and discussed, and the text needs thorough editing. Furthermore, there are many errors in the wording, references, and the use of terms. Below I listed a few points for the authors to improve the manuscript.1. The experiments were performed in batch cultures, where growth conditions change during the course of the experiment. For instance, nutrients are consumed, light availability is reduced and growth rate decreases. These dynamics are different compared to chemostats, where net population growth and the extent of nutrient limitation are fixed once in steady state (i.e. growth equals dilution rate). Working in batch cultures instead of chemostats has implications for applying theory, and in defining the limiting resource. It is not clear to me whether the authors are aware of this. E.g. how can the stoichiometry of cells keep pace with the nutrient supply ratio in batch cultures (Page 9, lines 57-59).2. The authors should more clearly describe the terms they use. For instance, what is exactly meant with their critical and optimal ratios? How did the authors calculated these ratios and which assumptions are needed? Also, it is not clear to me how nutrient drawdown was exactly assessed.3. Why are the critical and optimal ratios not based on the elemental ratios, but on the drawdown ratios? There is often not a direct correlation between drawdown and particulate elemental ratios, for instance due to excretion of organic nutrients.4. The authors should show the temporal changes in biomass and elemental ratios (and possibly nutrient concentrations). This will help to understand the observations, for instance, it will better illustrate when nitrogen, phosphorus and light become limiting. Did the authors also measure pH? In dense cultures, pH may increase to high levels and have consequences for phytoplankton growth.观测生物量与元素比例的变化，是否测量酸碱度，在高浓度的藻液中，酸碱度也可能成为限制的因素5. Exponential growth was set at growth rates >0.1. This seems very low to me, especially for Chlorella sp. What were the maximum growth rates at the different light intensities? I would define growth limitation when growth deviates from maximum growth rates.对数生长期的生长界限设置为0.1，可能偏低，特别是对于小球藻，在不同的光照条件下，最大生长速率是多少，当生长速率低于某一值时，就可以理解为生长收到了限制6. Did the authors test the ‘scraping’ of the organic matter from GF/F filters? How sure are the authors that all, or at least a known amount, was measured with the elemental analyzer? For the C:N ratios, this is obviously not a problem as these are measured at the same time, but it can be a problem for calculating C:P and N:P ratios.如何确保所有的有机物都被挂下来了，碳氮可以使用元素分析仪测量，磷呢7. The experimental set up should be explained in more detail. How long did the experiments run? How many replications were used? Were the cultures axenic? Were the cells acclimated to the respective light conditions and culture medium? In the discussion it is stated that cells were grown shortly in N and P depleted medium, which should be mentioned in the methods. How may these initial limitations have affected the observed dynamics? Do the authors also have NH4+ data? Why do the authors not show the cell count data? If available, this could then also be used for cellular C, N, and P quota, which will greatly help understanding the results.实验运行的时间，有没有重复，有没有外来生物污染，细胞是否适应了该光照强度与培养基，是否测量了氨氮，是否有细胞计数，如果有了，将可以用来说明细胞营养物含量8. The authors should better explain how they obtained the homeostasis coefficient H, and what the underlying assumptions are. It is also not clear to me how one can link the initial nutrient concentrations with the cellular stoichiometry obtained in stationary phase?内稳态指数如何计算，基本假设是什么9. Many aspects of the discussion are not clear or contain errors. For instance, how can phytoplankton cells reduce nutrient concentrations to levels lower than their R* (Page 11, lines 6)? Ribosomal RNA does not contain more P than N (Page 11, lines 36-37). How can the optimal nutrient supply ratio be critical for judging excessive nutrient consumption (Page 11, lines 52-57)? Phytoplankton do not require equal amount of nitrogen and phosphorus (Page 11, lines 58-60). It is not clear why nutrient assimilation capacity, rather than phosphate concentration, affected the total amount of nitrate taken up by the cells, as phosphate was the experimental variable.讨论不详细，包含错误，例如：细胞如何将将营养物质降低到低于R*,RNA包括更多的氮而不是磷，为什么最优氮磷比可以用来判断营养物的过量消费10. Although Chlorella sp. presumably can store excess N under P limitation, the discussion on this part is very hypothetical and would be stronger if the authors could back this up with cellular elemental data (Page 12, lines 10-25).在磷限制下，细胞可以存储更多的氮，是否可以使用细胞内部元素含量说明11. The meaning of paragraph 4.2 is not clear to me (Page 12, lines 27-56).12. Comparing the presented data with literature requires a more detailed explanation. For instance, how were the enlisted studies selected, based on which criteria? Are these all studies available on the topic? Were these studies also performed in batch cultures or in chemostats?与文献对比需要更多详细的解释，选择文献的标准是什么，是否都是研究的同一主题，是否使用的是相同的培养方式13. Do the authors have any idea about the light climate in the flasks? Denser cultures have more self-shading and thereby reduce the average light availability. In other words, are the authors sure about light limitation/inhibition? Is there information available on photosynthesis vs.irradiance relationships in Chlorella? When does limitation/inhibition occur? This is important for the discussion of light effects (Page 14, lines 12-60).对光环境的看法，随着细胞浓度的增加，细胞的自我遮蔽，是否有数据支持光照限制，这对讨论光照的影响很重要References1. Many references contain errors, or are incomplete.参考文献标注不全，包涵错误Figures and tables1.It is not clear to me what the difference exactly is between Figure 1 and 2, except for theswapped axes.图一与图二有什么明显的区别2.Although Figure 3 is potentially interesting, the currently described data is not supporting itentirely. A model parameterized with the data would be better for making such a scheme. 图三使用模型描述效果会更好3. For Figure 4 it would help if the authors write the specific ratios on the y-axes, instead of using arrows.4. Table 1: Is there not a standard BG-11 protocol the authors can refer to? What is A5?BG 11是否有标准配方，A5指的什么5. Table 5: Very unclear table. For comparison, it would help if the units for light intensities would be similar. 光照单位是否相同Reviewer: 2Comments to the AuthorGeneral:This MS is based on very interesting ideas, and could certainly further the field. Unfortunately, despite very good English there are too many unclarities in the MS that made it very difficult to follow what the authors had done. I think it is essential that we continue this kind of research. This MS, however, needs a thorough clean up and rewrite before it can be acceptable for publication.有很多地方没有叙述清楚以至于难以理解作者的意思，需要一个清晰的思路重新写作Specific:3:4 this is a very strange first sentence in an abstract. I would start with a general sentence on the background, or with a clear sentence why this was done.摘要先说明背景3:19 What is the critical ratio? This needs to be explained before it can be used.临界氮磷比是什么4:4 Have I missed something? Why use this tense. Better is Phytoplankton plays4:6 Very general, and why mention only N and P. Without having computed it, I would think that Si and Fe are more relevant on a world scale.，Si Fe 比氮磷更加重要4:10 Introduce abbreviations N and P4:12 Why call something a Redfield ratio, and then not cite Redfield?4:21 I do not understand this sentence. So non-balanced growth refers to light and carbon uptake here, or not? It cannot refer to the nutrients as such as these are used for the computation of the critical ratio.4:32 What are water blooms? An interesting citation here is: (Hillebrand et al. 2013) 为什么提到水华4:44 Introduce drawdown properly. What does this mean, how do you define and use it?适当的介绍drawdown,有什么意义，如何定义与使用4:50 I am not sure whether I agree. Even a fixed consumption ratio can involve luxury consumption 固定消费速率与过量消费的关系4:59 Is this not more or less the same under equilibrium assuming that algae are not homeostatic at all?5:3 I would argue that light is the only energy source in photoautotrophs. FULL STOP. Carbon availability can of course affect stoichiometry as well.是否考虑了碳的有效性5:15 So what is nutrient draw-down in the stationary phase? Is this relevant at all?在稳定期的营养物消费速率5:35 This sentence does not make sense5:48 What is nutrient co-limitation? Are the authors suggesting that only at the critical ratio the draw down is constant. That is not what they said earlier.6:8 Effects of light only on stationary cells?6:17 The institute of hydrobiology, which one?6:29 Why introduce a day-night rhythm? What was the volume of the vessels. Where was the light measured. This is relevant since the light extinction in dense vessels of algae is extremely strong. Why did the authors not bubble the cultures to make sure that the algae stayed In suspension?为什么不曝气6:39 Replication?6:47 I am completely confused on the experimental protocol. When were the cultures harvested? Was there one end-point measurements of everything, or a time course. Looking at the graphs I assume the former, but I cannot find it. Again what was the level of replication?实验重复7:8 I know that there was something suspicious in this paper, now I know. The authors used DEMONIZED water7:10 phosphorus not phosphorous7:28 I am confused. What does this mean particulate material was scraped from the filter?为什么是刮下来的7:50 I am very confused. An intercept of zero implicitly means that the draw down is exactly the same ratio as the availability. What would happen if the N:P ratio of the medium was 1000, I am sure there would be some N left at the end of the experiment, and no way are both nutrients zero.So I do not understand this.为什么截距是07:52 Her this needs to be defined very clearly, one is related to the draw down the other to the cellular content or not?8:10 There is no such publication as Sterner 2002没有这个参考文献8:38 Throughout batch cultivation? I do not see a time line.8:57 I see no difference between figs1 and 2. As far as I can see it exactly the same data are displayed. Except perhaps the ends of the curves where one of the nutrients was close to zero.图一与图二是一批数据9:2 first? Again some hidden timeline which is not presented.9:14 statistically different? How? 统计学的不同，为什么10:28 If I am honest, I have given up roughly here. There are so many points that I do not understand in this MS, that I find it impossible to continue reviewing this work in the detail I did until now. I believe the ideas are very valid, and the work is very interesting, but there are simply too many instances of unclarity, which makes it impossible to judge the merit of this work.11:51 two days? Triangular flask?11:59 Equal amounts of N and P. What kind of substances are made there?15:15 This is a very strange ending. No final sentence, no general conclusion没有结论Figs 1 & 2: the colour coding is inconsistent24:21 What is A5?A5是什么？Hillebrand, H., G. Steinert, M. Boersma, A. M. Malzahn, C. L. Meunier, C. Plum, and R. Ptacnik. 2013. Goldman revisited: faster growing phytoplankton has lower N:P and lower stoichiometric flexibility. Limnology & Oceanography 56:2076-2088.Reviewer: 3Comments to the AuthorThank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. Whilst the topic is of interest, and I normally both favour and support research in ecological stoichiometry and phytoplankton ecophysiology, I conclude that the large number of conceptual problems and methodological questions in the current manuscript unfortunately create major problems.大量的概念问题与方法问题I have made extensive editorial comments throughout the manuscript using Adobe Acrobat, and I very much hope that these suggestions will be of value to the authors when crafting a revised version for later submission to an alternative journal.。

HowTo Review A Paper

HOW TO REVIEW A PAPERDale J.Benos,1Kevin L.Kirk,1and John E.Hall21Department of Physiology and Biophysics,University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham,Alabama35294;and2Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Mississippi Medical Center,Jackson,Mississippi39216 M ost scientists acquire their training in manuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it.Formal training in manuscript analysisis rarely,if ever,provided.Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in a given subject area and availability.If an individual repeatedly submitsbad reviews,it is likely that that person will not be asked to review a manuscriptagain.Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor,not only because you arebeing recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also becauseof the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientiﬁc community.The purpose of this article is to deﬁne how best to peer review an article.We willstipulate several principles of peer review and discuss some of the main elements ofa good manuscript review,the basic responsibilities of a reviewer,and the rewardsand responsibilities that accompany this process.Proper reviewer conduct is essen-tial for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy.ADV PHYSIOL EDUC27:47–52,2003;10.1152/advan.00057.2002.Key words:publications;ethics;peer review;reviewer responsibilitiesLike any skill,the art of reviewing manuscripts is one that improves with practice.Although a person is not born with the knowledge or ability of how to be a good reviewer,the characteristics(e.g.,fairness,thor-oughness,integrity)of that person certainly contrib-ute to the activity.Unfortunately,it is rare toﬁnd a scientist whose formal training has incorporated in-struction in the art of reviewing.Nonetheless,the techniques of peer reviewing a manuscript can be nurtured and developed.Yet,peer review is a recog-nized and critical component of the overall publica-tion process that confers“added value”to a submitted paper.Moreover,editors are dependent on the iden-tiﬁcation of a cadre of“good”reviewers that they can rely on for quality control and process efﬁciency. Reviewers,for the most part,act in this capacity from a sense of duty,selﬂessness,and a desire to contribute in an important way to the maintenance of high stan-dards and veracity in their speciﬁc areas of research. Usually,no monetary compensation is,or should be, provided.This article will serve as an introduction to peer re-view.Our intent is to identify issues and ethics of the review process,not to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines for all aspects of the review process. We will focus on the peer review of research manu-scripts submitted to scientiﬁc journals,but many of the elements of peer review can be applied to other areas,such as grants and books.Several questions will be addressed.What constitutes a good review and reviewer?How should the review of a manuscript be approached?What elements of a review are most useful to the authors and editors?Should a manuscript be reviewed differently depending on the nature of the journal?It is our contention,based on experience,1043-4046/03–$5.00–COPYRIGHT©2003THE AMERICAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY on March 7, 2006 Downloaded fromthat if a reviewer acts as an“author advocate,”then many potential problems that may arise during the peer review process will be avoided.For example,a reviewer should treat a manuscript being reviewed as he/she would want his/her own paper treated,i.e., provide a critique that is positive,critical yet objec-tive,and balanced,contains no personally offensive comments,and is returned promptly.When speciﬁc criticisms are made,the reviewer should indicate pre-cisely what the problems are and how they may be overcome.A confusing or uninformative critique is not helpful either to the authors or to the editor.If the reviewer disputes a point made by the authors,he/ she should provide explicit justiﬁcation for his/her argument(e.g.,literature citations).Unjustiﬁed biases on the part of the reviewer have no place in peer review.A reviewer also has a responsibility to famil-iarize him/herself with all aspects of the manuscript unless directed by the editor to focus on a speciﬁc area.This may entail reading previous,related articles from the authors or other papers in theﬁeld.It is fair to assume that the authors of the submitted manu-script are passionate about their work and that they have made a legitimate effort to perform and interpret their experiments carefully.However,the other hat that a reviewer must wear is that of the“journal advocate.”As a journal advocate,the reviewer’s job is to make sure that the best possible science appears in print.The purpose of peer review is to ensure1) quality,checking that no mistakes in procedure or logic have been made;2)that the results presented support the conclusion drawn;3)that no errors in citations to previous work have been made;4)that all human and animal protocols conducted follow proper review and approval by appropriate institu-tional review committees;and,very importantly,5) that the work is original and signiﬁcant. ELEMENTS OF MANUSCRIPT REVIEW Manuscript review can be divided into two main cat-egories:the technical and the ethical.Both aspects are primarily concerned with making the manuscript better and ensuring that it is reporting trustworthy data.An example of reviewer instructions is presented as Table1.Note that points1,2,4,5,and6are con-cerned with more technical issues.Is the writing clear, concise,and intelligible?Is the manuscript logical?Does it make a signiﬁcant and novel contribution to theﬁeld?Are there any fatal methodologicalﬂaws?Are all theﬁgures clear and necessary?Point3deals primarily withethical issues.Are there any concerns with regard to theproper use and care of animals?If human studies weredone,were they conducted with the prior approval ofthe subjects and institutions?Did the human protocolsconform to prevailing ethical and legal standards?Point7likewise falls under an ethical realm,only not for theauthors but for the reviewer.The manuscript must betreated in a conﬁdential manner.Thus a reviewer mustnot only provide an unbiased evaluative analysis of the structural components of a manuscript but must do soin an acceptable,ethical context.REVIEWER’S ETIQUETTE ANDRESPONSIBILITIESIt is important to remember that a reviewer is asked toprovide an informed opinion about a manuscript.Thedecision whether the manuscript will be published ismade solely by the editor.Thus the editor must beable to discern very precisely the reviewer’s thoughtsand weigh that opinion with or against those of theother reviewers and his/her own.An editor will ap-preciate a substantive evaluation of a manuscript.If areviewer disagrees with the conclusion of an author,it is incumbent upon the reviewer to provide deﬁni-tive reasons or appropriate citations,not simply makeremarks such as,“I just don’t believe your data,”or“Itcan’t possibly be so.”If a reviewer has a bias againstthe author,he/she should recuse him/herself from reviewing the paper.A reviewer must be knowledge-able about the topic and have a clear understanding ofthe historical context in which the work was done.Because many manuscripts nowadays are collabora-tive efforts between different laboratories using amyriad of different techniques,it is unlikely that anysingle reviewer will be expert in all of the protocols encountered in a given paper.The reviewer should comment only on those aspects of the work withwhich he/she has familiarity;making the editor awareof this is helpful.Again,let us reiterate,the most important rule is to follow the golden rule:treat all manuscripts in the same manner that you would wantyour own treated.The responsibilities of a reviewer can be summarizedas follows.on March 7, 2006Downloaded from1.The reviewer should provide an honest,critical assessment of the research.The reviewer ’s job is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the research,provide suggestions for improvement,and clearly state what must be done to raise the level of enthusiasm for the work.The reviewer should not manipulate the process to force the authors to address issues interesting or important to the reviewer but peripheral to the objective(s)of the study.2.The reviewer should maintain con ﬁdentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript.It is not appropriate to share the manuscript or to dis-cuss it in detail with others or even to reveal the existence of the submission before publication.There are some exceptions,if approved by the editor.One exception is that the reviewer may want a junior colleague to have the experience of reviewing and therefore may ask him/her to collab-orate on a review.However,if this is done,your collaborator on the review should also agree to maintain con ﬁdentiality,and the editor should be informed of the participation of this additional per-son.Some journals require editor approval before a colleague or student is asked to view a submitted paper;others do not.3.The reviewer must not participate in plagiarism.It is obviously a very serious transgression to take data or novel concepts from a paper to advance your own work before the manuscript is pub-lished.4.The reviewer should always avoid,or disclose,any con ﬂicts of interest.For example,the re-TABLE 1Criteria for manuscript review1.Scienti ﬁc quality of the workⅢAre the methods appropriate and presented in suf ﬁcient detail to allow the results to be repeated?ⅢAre the data adequate to support the conclusions?2.PresentationsⅢWriting:Is it clear,concise,and in good English?ⅢTitle:Is it speci ﬁc and does it re ﬂect the content of the manuscript?ⅢAbstract:Is it brief and does it indicate the purpose of the work,what was done,what was found,and the signi ﬁcance?ⅢFigures:Are they justi ﬁed?Are they sharp,with lettering proportionate to the size of the ﬁgure?Are there legends to explain the ﬁgures?ⅢTables:Can they be simpli ﬁed or condensed?Should any be omitted?ⅢTrade names,abbreviations,symbols:Are these misused?3.Research violationsⅢAre there violations of the Guiding Principles in the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals?ⅢIf the research involved human subjects,were the studies performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki?If you have concerns about the welfare of animal or human subjects used by the authors,include written comments to the editor.4.RatingⅢAssign a rating on the reviewer form;rank the manuscript relative to other work in the same ﬁeld.5.Con ﬁdential commentsⅢProvide comments regarding the novelty and signi ﬁcance of the manuscript.ⅢProvide a recommendation about the manuscript ’s suitability for publication in the journal;these comments will not be returned to the author(s).ments for authorsⅢOn the reviewer form,provide speci ﬁc comments,preferably numbered,on the design,presentation of data,results,and discussion.DO NOT include recommendations for publication on the second page.ⅢPlease be certain that your comments to the author(s)are consistent with your rating recommendation.7.Privileged documentⅢThis manuscript is a privileged communication;the data and ﬁndings are the exclusive property of the author(s)and should not be disclosed to others who might use this information in their research.ⅢThe manuscript,illustrations,and tables should be destroyed upon completing the review or,if anticipating a revision,kept con ﬁdential until the review process is complete.ⅢIf you have shared responsibility for the review of this manuscript with a colleague,please provide that person ’s name and institutional af ﬁliation.on March 7, 2006 Downloaded fromviewer should decline to review a manuscript ona subject in which he/she is involved in a conten-tious dispute and does not feel that a fair review can be provided.The reviewer should also avoid biases that inﬂuence the scientiﬁc basis for a review.One example of this is a bias that favors studies with positive rather than negative results.Another example is if the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors such that his/her objectivity would be compromised.Scientiﬁc merit should be the basis for all reviews.5.The reviewer should accept manuscripts for re-view only in his/her areas of expertise.Although editors try very hard to match manuscripts with the most expert reviewers,sometimes mistakes are made.It is unfair to the authors and to the overall review process if the referee does not have the expertise to review the manuscript ad-equately.The exception to this general rule is when an editor speciﬁcally asks for your view as a“nonexpert”or seeks your opinion on a special aspect of the manuscript(e.g.,statistics).6.The reviewer should agree to review only thosemanuscripts that can be completed on time.Sometimes,unforeseen circumstances arise that preclude a reviewer from meeting a deadline,but in these instances the reviewer should immedi-ately contact the editor.It is unfair to the authors of the manuscript for reviews to be inordinately delayed by tardy referees.Delaying a review can sometimes lead to charges by the authors that the reviewers(who undoubtedly work in the same area)are“stonewallng”in order to publish their related workﬁrst,thus establishing priority.7.The reviewer also has the unpleasant responsibil-ity of reporting suspected duplicate publication, fraud,plagiarism,or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.8.The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial,constructive manner.This is especially helpful to new investigators.There is nothing more discour-aging to a new investigator(or even to a more seasoned one)than to receive a sarcastic,destruc-tive review.Editors are not trying to determinethe scientiﬁc prowess or wittiness of the re-viewer.The reviewer should not shy away fromdiscussing the weaknesses(or strengths)of astudy,however.No one likes to have a paperrejected,but a carefully worded review with ap-propriate suggestions for revision can be veryhelpful.In fact,an author should prefer to havehis/her paper rejected if the review process un-covered errors in the study.SUMMARYReviewing is both a privilege and responsibility.Ittakes time to prepare a useful,critical review.More-over,it clearly is a service to the journal,to the authors,to science at large,and to the reviewer be-cause the reviewer becomes privy to the latest incutting-edge research.Most journals do not pay refer-ees,although most do provide acknowledgement inprint to the editorial board and external referees ineach issue of the journal and/or,like the American Physiological Society,by holding a yearly PublicationsBanquet at the Experimental Biology meeting.Peerreview is the heart and soul of scientiﬁc publishing.Editors rely on reviewers to assess quality and to determine which of the many manuscripts competingfor space will be published.Therefore,the most im-portant reward for you as a reviewer is your contri-bution to the quality of published science.We submit that,regardless of the perceived preemi-nence of any particular journal,you should approachthe review of each research paper the same way.Table2provides a checklist for the essential elementsthat should be addressed in any review.Table3sum-marizes what a handling editor is concerned withwhen evaluating the quality of a review and reviewer.TABLE2Checklist for reviews:issues for comment1.Importance of research question2.Originality of work3.Delineation of strengths and weaknesses ofmethodology/experimental/statistical approach/interpretationof results4.Writing style andﬁgure/table presentation5.Ethical concerns(animal/human)on March 7, 2006Downloaded fromFrom a practical point of view,publishing your own manuscripts depends on the quality and altruism of other peer reviewers,and you undoubtedly desireyour own work to be evaluated carefully and fairly.There are many aspects of providing good construc-tive reviews.Some of these are best learned through your mentors and your own experience.However,the most important traits are courtesy,fairness,and punctuality.Thus,when peer reviewing,follow the golden rule:treat other manuscripts as you wouldwant your own to be treated.The entire peer review process,which in essence determines the public record of science,is based on trust —trust between authors and editors and trust between editors and reviewers.The quality and integrity of the entire sci-enti ﬁc publishing enterprise depends in large mea-sure on the quality and integrity of the reviewers.RESOURCES Very little de ﬁnitive research into the practice and effectiveness of peer review has been done,although groups such as the Council of Science Editors,the American Medical Association,the American Chemi-cal Society,the American College of Emergency Phy-sicians,and the Committee on Publication Ethics rec-ognize the importance of such information.Forexample,the Journal of the American Medical Asso-ciation has sponsored four International Congresses on Peer Review in Biomedical Publications (10).The September 2001issue of Academic Medicine was dedicated to a discussion of review criteria and re-viewer behavior for research manuscripts (5).A book summarizing the latest research on different aspects of peer review has been published by the British Medical Journal (4).A number of general articles on peer review and the role of a reviewer have been published (2,6,7,9).Several articles concerning reviewer selection criteria and evaluation also exist (1,3,8).AUTHOR AFFILIATIONSDale J.Benos,PhD,is a former Editor-in-Chief of theAmerican Journal of Physiology -Cell Physiology ,serves on ﬁve editorial boards of biomedical journals and has served on nine others in the past.He iscurrently Chair of the Publications Committee of theAmerican Physiological Society and Chair of the De-partment of Physiology and Biophysics at the Univer-sity of Alabama at Birmingham.Kevin L.Kirk,PhD,is Professor of Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Alabama at Birming-ham.He is a member of two editorial boards and is Director of the Integrated Biomedical Sciences Grad-uate Program at the University of Alabama at Birming-ham.John E.Hall,PhD,served as Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Physiology -Regulatory,Inte-grative,and Comparative Physiology ,is currently Editor-In-Chief of Hypertension ,and is a member of the editorial boards of eight other journals.He is Past President of the American Physiological Society and Chair of the Department of Physiology and Biophysicsat the University of Mississippi Medical Center.We thank Margaret Reich for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript.Address for reprint requests and other correspondence:D.J.Benos,Dept.of Physiology and Biophysics,The Univ.of Alabama at Bir-mingham,1918Univ.Blvd.,MCLM 704,Birmingham,AL 35294–0005(E-mail:benos@).Received 11December 2002;accepted in ﬁnal form 20March 2003References1.Baxt WG,Waeckerle JF,Berlin JA,and Callaham ML.Who reviews the reviewers?Feasibility of using a ﬁctitious manu-script to evaluate peer reviewer performance.Ann Emerg Med32:310–317,1998.2.Black N,van Rooyen S,Godlee F,Smith R,and Evans S.What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?JAMA 280:231–233,1998.3.Caelleigh AS,Shea JA,and Penn G.Selection and qualities of reviewers.Acad Med 76:914–916,2001.4.Godlee F and Jefferson T.Peer Review in Health Sciences .London:BMJ Publishing Group,1999.TABLE 3Editor ’s evaluation of review and reviewer 1.Thoroughness and comprehensiveness2.Timeliness3.Citing appropriate evidence to support comments made to author4.Providing constructive criticism5.Objectivity6.Clear statement to editor as to the appropriateness and priority of research for publication on March 7, 2006 Downloaded from5.Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee.Task force report—review criteria for re-search manuscripts.Acad Med76(9),2001.6.Polak JF.The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer reviewprocess.Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther165:685–688,1995.7.Siegelman SS.Assassins and zealots:variations in peer review.Radiology178:637–642,1991.8.Van Rooyen S,Black N,and Godlee F.Development of thereview quality instrument(RQI)for assessing peer reviews ofmanuscripts.J Clin Epidemiol52:625–629,1999.9.Weller AC.Editorial.Peer review in US medical journals.JAMA263:1344–1347,1990.10.Weller AC.Peer review:do studies prove its effectiveness?TheScientist October29,2001,p.39.on March 7, 2006Downloaded from。

怎样写英文论文review(我的笔记)

How to peer review?General ideas1.Don’t share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others. The reviewer shouldmaintain confidentiality.（对所评阅的文章必须保密）2.To provide an honest, critical assessment of the work.To analyze the strengths and weaknesses, provide suggestions for improvement, and clearly state what must be done to raise the level of enthusiasm for the work.（对文章的优缺点做出评论，并明确指出应该怎么修改才能提升现有的文章质量）3.The reviewer should write reviews in a collegial, constructive manner. A carefully wordedreview with appropriate suggestions for revision can be very helpful.（以建设性的、学术性的口吻对文章进行评价，并给出建设性的修改再投递的意见）4.Support your criticisms or praise with concrete reasons that are well laid out and logical.（给出的评价应该附加有支撑观点的具体原因）5.评阅步骤：(1)Read the manuscript carefully from beginning to end before considering the review.Get a complete sense of the scope and novelty.(2)Move to analyzing the paper in detail, providing a summary statement of yourfindings and detailed comments.(3)Use clear reasoning to justify each criticism and highlight good points and weakerpoints.(4)If there are positive aspects of a poor paper, try to find some way of encouraging theauthor while still being clear on the reasons for rejection.（如果被拒绝的文章中有部分闪光点，可以鼓励作者。

英文论文审稿意见

1、目标和结果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重视程度）：In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it ?the quality of English needs improving.Reviewer 4Reviewer Recommendation Term: RejectOverall Reviewer Manuscript Rating: 25Comments to Editor: Reviewers are required to enter their name, affiliation and e-mail address below. Please note this is for administrative purposes and will not be seen by the author.Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof.Name: XXXAffiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxManuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。

投稿SCI论文通信实录及必备技术(8)

Reviewers' Comments to Authors:
Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The manuscript by Li et al describes an improved procedure for an established transformation method. Although the results show an improvement over available data, this does not warrant a full paper. Major comments: 1. To evaluate the improved procedure the data of all repeat experiments and control of original method mentioned ion page 7 should be given in full detail in a table. This table could also include details for other published Pleurotus transformation data (ref 1,2 and 3). In addition the full details obtained with this method for other species (page 8) should be given in this table. 2. All current figures could be omitted and described in the text. 3. The data on GFP expression are incomplete. Was a cotransformation with hph done? Without selection the GFP expression observed is probably transient, due to lack of integration of the introduced vector. Thus conlcusions based on the data are very limited.

Reviewer1（CommentstotheAuthor）-Nature

Dear Editor,Please, find below the itemized list of the corrections brought to our ms (N°NPP-07-0364RR) on the basis of the last reviewers comments.Reviewer #11.There is only one major concern about the question.... "that recent studies... of cha nges in 5-HT RNAm and protein expression induced by memory formation and drugs..., eventually lead to arborization? The authors in the rebuttal letter stated that: "It is likely they might contribute. The point is that we do not know how these 5-HT protein and RNAm receptors are expressed in the mouse brain so that we cannot speculate on their role in promoting dendritic spine growth in mice treated with the 5-HT4Rs agonist". However, in the new introduction authors mentioned that "there is not yet evidence that such compounds enhance learning-induced structural plasticity" (last lines of the first paragraph). This last statement seems speculative and/or not justified by the available evidence.This statement has been deleted along with the following reference:Izquierdo I, Medina JH (1995) Correlation between the pharmacolog y of long-term potentiation and the pharmacology of memory. Neurobiol Learn Mem 63:19-32Associate editor1. I was surprised that the authors did the control experiment reviewer #3 requested (i.e. to check spine densities in cortical regions unassociated with olfactory memory) but make no mention of these results in the Discussion.A sentence in the discussion section (1st paragraph) states now that, in mice trained or pseudo trained in the OTM, “the compound was not found modify spine density on pyramidal neurons laying in the primary visual cortex area, a region unrelated to the memory pathways”2. I am still concerned about the small number of experimental subjects that make up each group. A concern is that the effect sizes reported are not huge and this statistic is only reported in the legends to Figures 1 and 3 yet they refer to significant effects in figures 2 and 4 as well but give no values in the figure legends.In the revised version of the manuscript the sample size issue was addressed replicating experiments. The main effect (SL65.0155 enhancing learning-induced spine growth) was observed (i) across different batches thus increasing its internal validity and (ii) on several related measurements (behaviour and morphology of apical, oblique and basal dendrites). Keeping in mind that the C57Bl/6 strain is an inbred strain (showing minimal inter-individual variability in behaviour and brain characteristics) it is rather customary using 6-8 per group. Moreover, unbiased sampling procedures applied throughout the experiment (blind counting of spines, random selection of the brains t o be processed for spine analysis) made us comfortable with the validity of the statistical results.The statistical values are now reported also in figures 2 and 4. In addition, new symbols indicating t he correct p-level for post-hoc tests have been added to figure 2.Minor changes1. Text (Typographical errors corrected)Page 8, paragraph title: correct concentration for SL65.0155 is 0.01mg/KgPage 8, line 8 and last line: correct name is RS39604Page 8, line 9: correct name is SL65.01552. FiguresSymbols indicating p level have been changed on figure 2 according to post–hoc results described in the results section.3. Acknowledgment section has been addedWe thank the reviewers for their suggestions along with their positive comments and hope that our manuscript can be now considered for publication in Neuropsychopharmacology.Martine A mmassari-TeuleCorresponding author。

SCI发表过程

发信人: jessewang (jesse), 信区: Paper
标题: 转载：把自己发SCI的过程写出来与大家分享
发信站: 天大求实BBS (Mon May 25 22:16:19 2009), 本站()
文章出来了,把自己发SCI的过程写出来与大家分享
在论坛看了很多发表文章的经验,从中学了很多技巧,现在文章发表了，特写点东西回馈.希望对别人有用.
Journal: ACS里比较低的，影响因子2左右,呵呵，头一篇SCI,低了些.
1. 首先一定要注意杂志的发表范围, 超出范围的千万别投,要不就是浪费时间;另外，每个杂志都有他们的具体格式要求，一定要按照他们的要求把论文写好，免得浪费时间，最好看看最近几期的文章，大致有所了解.
下面把和期刊的拉锯过程介绍如下:
_____________________________________________
5月20日投稿
cover letter
Dear Editor:
We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled " ********", which we wish to be considered for publication in Journal of *******. The work described has not been submitted elsewhere for publication, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.
Recommendation: Publish after minor revisions noted.

通讯作者的准确含义 Corresponding Authors

Paul S. Weiss Editor-in-Chief
Acknowledgment. P.S.W. would like to thank his collaborators over the years who have helped shape the ACS Nano policy described.
From the point of view of editors, when we search for appropriate referees of submitted manuscripts by looking at the authors of papers on related work, we are most likely to select only the corresponding authors, unless we personally know the authors involved. We select these potential referees carefully, and we depend on senior scientists' wisdom, perspective, and opinions in order to come to our editorial decisions.1 For more information on what is expected of referees, please see the ACS Publishing 101 videos on the topic.2
In contrast to the long-term obligations of the corresponding authors described above, during the submission and revision processes, the submitting author (perhaps this designation is more accurate) coordinates the manuscript, cover letter, editor and referee

编辑反馈的内容

编辑反馈的内容编辑反馈的内容Anatomical entity recognition with a hierarchical framework augmented by external resources PLOS ONEThank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit, but is not suitable for publication as it currently stands. Therefore, my decision is "Major Revision."We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all of the concerns raised by the two reviewers. It is critical that you specifically address the following issues: 1) Provide more details on your methodology and data sources (possibly with examples), so that the reviewers can better evaluate the summary results provided in the tables; 2) Describe precisely what will be publicly available; 3) Thoroughly edit your revised manuscript before submission. Please note that PLoS ONE does not provide copy editing.We encourage you to submit your revision within forty-five days of the date of this decision.When your files are ready, please submit your revision by logging on to and following the Submissions Needing Revision link. Do not submit a revised manuscript as a new submission. Before uploading, you should proofread your manuscript very closely for mistakes and grammatical errors. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, you may not have another chance to make corrections as we do not offer pre-publication proofs.If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.In addition, when submitting your revision please include the following items:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point brought up by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as a 'Response to Reviewers' file.∙ A clean revised manuscript as your 'Manuscript' file.∙ A marked-up copy of the changes made from the previous article fileas a 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' file. This can be done using 'track changes' in programs such as MS Word and/orhighlighting any changes in the new document. ∙For more information on how to upload your revised submission, see our video:/everyone/2021/05/10/how-to-submit-your-revised-manuscript/If you choose not to submit a revision, please notify us.Yours sincerely,Ramin Homayouni, Ph.D.Academic EditorPLOS ONEJournal requirements:When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:1. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold your manuscript until you get in touch with us with the accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your data availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will make them on your behalf.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsComments to the Author1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have beenconducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.Reviewer #1: PartlyReviewer #2: Yes2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: Yes3. Does the manuscript adhere to the PLOS Data Policy?Authors must follow the , which requires authors to make all dataunderlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction. Please refer to the author’s Data Availability Statement in the manuscript. All data and related metadata must be deposited in an appropriate public repository, unless already provided as part of the submitted article or supporting information. If there are restrictions on the ability of authors to publicly share data —e.g. privacy or use of data from a third party— these reasons must be specified.Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: No4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographicalor grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.Reviewer #1: NoReviewer #2: Yes5. Review Comments to the AuthorPlease use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, includingconcerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)Reviewer #1: This paper presents an interesting hierarchical framework to recognize anatomical entities, which is important in healthcare domain. Authors also bring the importance and the challenges of this task. To the best of my knowledge, I summarize my comments and suggestions as follows:1) Features for the sequence labeling problems under CRF are comprehensive and acceptable. Authors include baseline natural language features, semantic features from external knowledge about Wikipedia and WordNet, co-reference, and dictionary matching.2) Authors conducted relatively comprehensive experiments to show the contribution of each individual features and combination of features to the overall precision and recall.3) Problem introduction and annotation are good too.However, some major points need to be fixed:1) The writing of this paper is really poor. All table references are not correct, grammar errors can be seen almost every paragraph. It is very very difficult to read. It took me hundreds of hours to understand what authors try to deliver. Let me just show examples based on the abstract: a) The first sentence is not a complete sentence. "To develop....in medical records."b) "They infer relevant anatomical...in the record but also by other diverse..." ==> "They infer relevant anatomical entities based on bothexplicit anatomical expressions in the record and other diverse... "c) "The hierarchical framework was demonstrated..." ==> "The hierarchical framework was demonstrated...in F1 comparing to ???"many others in the paper!!!!!2) For the annotation, authors used A3 to check (A1, A2), then obtain the coefficient. Why not A3->(A1, A2), A1->(A2, A3), and A2->(A1, A3), then obtain the average coefficient? What if there is a annotation conflict, meaning that all 3 annotators do not agree? In addition, authors claim that their golden standard is not perfect, then why you still use them to do evaluations?3) From the experimental results, CF seems to be the smallest contribution to the precision in table 5 and table 8, then why adding CF gets a lotincrease in table 6 and 9? I don't believe this result. Can you give some explanations.In addition, some suggestions,It would be great if the paper gives some formal definition of eachconcept and shows some real or toy examples in figure. They can help readersto catch the point.Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Yan Xu et al. describes the construction of an anatomical entity recognition framework based on a machine learning algorithm. This framework can recognize not only explicit expressions of anatomical entities, but also implicit expressions such as diseases, clinical treatments, and clinical tests. The authors insisted that the recognition ofthe implicit expressions was important because the implicit expressions are abundant in clinical records and it is from these implicit expressions that medical experts can infer the anatomical entities described in the documents.The framework consists of three layers of entity recognizers, all of which are based on conditional random field (CRF) models. The first layer is themulti-class CRF recognizer developed for the 2021 and 2021 I2B2 challenge;this layer recognizes entities of three semantic classes: diseases, clinical treatments, and clinical tests. The other two recognizer layers are developedin this study. One (the second layer) is for explicit anatomical expressionand the other (the third layer) is for implicit expression.For use in the training and testing of the CRF models, the authorscarefully made an annotated corpus of 300 clinical records (i.e., thedischarge summaries in this study). The resulting annotations include 16690 explicit anatomical entity tokens and 5564 implicit anatomical entity tokens.The authors used the following features for the construction of the CRF models and considered the relative impact on the recognition performance using precision, recall, and F-score: baseline features (a standard set of useful features for general named entity recognition tasks), ontological features DF1 and DF2 (based on some of the representative anatomical ontologies: UMLS, MeSH, RadLex, and BodyParts3D), coreference features, and world knowledge features WF1, WF2, WF3, and HF, which is based on the dictionary constructed from the terms in Wikipedia and WordNet,whose definition sentences contain explicit anatomical entities, for the purpose of extracting implicit anatomical entities; HF is referred to as a hierarchical feature.This study is original and addresses an important task in processing medical documents in general. Their analytical approach seems to be sound in the sense of ordinal research on natural language processing. Therefore, this manuscript seems to warrant publication in PLOS ONE.The main criticism I have is the lack of consideration of concrete instances of anatomical dictionaries, clinical record corpuses, annotations, and experiment results. The authors only provided several numerical tables of the precision, recall, and F-score. All the main conclusions were drawn from observation of these numerical tables. Although I know that this style is common in NLP research papers, I believe that without an investigation of concrete instances, readers cannot evaluate the relative impact of the many factors that will affect the final performance.With only a little thought, one can list up many factors that affect the final results: data sources selection for the construction of the anatomical dictionaries, relative contribution of the (four) data sources on the performance, whether there exists some particular anatomical term in the four dictionaries that has a significant effect on the performance, the total size of anatomical dictionaries, semantic type of terms included in the anatomical dictionaries, type of clinical records, total number of clinical records and sentences which are annotated by the experts, target semantic types, the choices of machine learning algorithms, and the selection of the features for the CRF models, as well as many other factors. However, observation of the series of numerical tables yields only limited information about the impact of the factors and what entities can/cannot be recognized under the proposed framework.Therefore, at very least, the authors should provide a part of the list of 16690 ―explicit anatomical entity tokens‖ and 5564 ―implicit an atomical entity tokens‖ with their numbers of occurrences in the corpus, because these define the problem that this manuscript is addressing.In addition, the authors should discuss what terms in the anatomical dictionary match the annotated tokens and/or the results of theBegin/Inside/Outside (BIO) calling by the CRF model. Then some explanation ofthe relative impact of the framework components should be provided based onthe concrete instances of matching results.A second criticism concerns the reproducibility of this study. Althoughthe authors wrote at the end of the abstract section, ―The resources constructed for this research will be made publicly available.‖ since the resources needed for the reproduction of this study are not provided at this time, I could not evaluate whether the results can be reproduced using the resources that the authors say will be eventually provided. I know that the authors have made a great contribution to the NLP research field, not only by introducing novel concepts, but also by providing many useful resources, including software and annotated corpuses, and so I believe that the resources that will be available to the public will be quite useful for NLP researchers, but I believe that it is quite important to meet the reproducibility criteria stated in the publication criteria of PLOS ONE(―described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described‖), and in order to meet these criteria, I expect thatthe authors will need to write additional paragraphs describing in sufficient detail how to reproduce the result tables. I believe that the results havebeen largely affected by the content of the dictionaries and annotatedcorpuses constructed by the authors, and therefore, without these resources,it will be quite difficult for other researchers to reproduce exactly the results described in the tables.Minor pointsPage 8, lines 7–10I do not understand the meaning of the numbers described in Table 4.What is the denominator of ―Coverage of explicit named entity‖? Total number of annotated tokens in the corpus? Or number of unique tokens annotated? In typical cases, rather simple anatomical terms such as ―brain‖, ―liver‖, and ―blood‖ frequently appear in the corpus, and of course these are matched readily to the anatomical dictionaries.Page 12, lines 7–13.The table numbering in the main text is not consistent with the actualtable numbers. (Table 4, ..., Table 9 in the main text should be Table 5, …, Table 10.)Page 14, lines 3–5Near the top of the DISCUSSION section, the author wrote: ―While the features based on the dictionary of anatomical entity expressions greatly improved the performance on explicit anatomical entities, they do not enhance th e performance on explicit anatomical entities.‖ But the second occurrence of the word ―explicit‖ should be ―implicit‖.6. If you would like your identity to be revealed to the authors, please include your name here (optional).Your name and review will not be published with the manuscript.Reviewer #1: (No Response)Reviewer #2: (No Response)[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, theywill be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]。

JAP论文接收,分享我的投稿经历-酸甜苦辣

that this is exac
tly at the center of the device.
3) At the end of the same paragraph is '... once the bias is below ...'
Should this not be the gate instead of the bias voltage?
4) Page 4, paragraph starting with 'As we know, in the ...'
'... To be different from previous calculati***** ...' replace by
voltage compare with experiments? There exists at least one
report to determine the potential height of quantum-point contacts
below pinch-off as function of gate voltage (Gloos et al., Phys.
However, the authors do not show or even discuss how this can
be achieved. Therefore I believe that in the present form the paper
is not suitable for publication.
For your guidance, I append the reviewyou for giving us the opportunity to c*****ider your work.

response to decision letter

一审结果是minor revisionThe main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as f ollowing: Reviewer: 1Comments to AuthorThis article represents the first meta-analysis of prognostic significance of NLR, which is currently topical. You have conducted an extensive review and I think your article makes valid and sensible conclusions regarding NLR.However the abstract, introduction and discussion are poorly written and require revision. There are many spelling mistakes. There are frequent sentences and paragraphs which are poorly structured, making some parts of the article very difficult to understand. These need correction.Re: That is a constructive suggestion to improve the paper publication potential. We apologize for all the illegibility for reading due to poorly writing. Accordingly, we have done some modification on those sections, including abstract, introduction and discussion, that was amended by a native English speaker. We have a try to correct the spelling errors and polish the sentences and paragraphs in order to make it more readable. Subsequently, we look forward that the revised manuscript is adaptable for the demands for open publication.Progression free survival is not correctly defined in your article; PFS is the time to tumour recurrence or death from any cause. You describe "time to tumour recurrence" instead, which is a different entity. This should be clarified.Re: Thank you for carefully and patiently reviewing manuscript. We are sincerely sorry forour incorrect definition of progression free survival (PFS) in our manuscript. We have already corrected the definition according to your valuable suggestion in the revised manuscript. We hope that you will be satisfied with the revision.Reviewer: 2Comments to AuthorThis is an overall interesting meta analysis providing evidence that NLR is associated with survival outcome in colorectal cancer. The data is well presented and critically discussed. It would have been of interest if the studies could be stratified according to NSAID use.Re：We do appreciate your comments. Our team totally agree with your comments that the manuscript would be of additional scientific merit, if it could be stratified according to NSAID use. Then, we carried out an extensively re-checking our analysis of enrolled articles. Nevertheless, it was regretable to disclose that all 16 included articles failed to confer sufficient files on predicting the prognosis with regard to NSAID use. Therefore, a stratification analysis on the basis of NSAID was not approachable. If probable, it is our future research focus.。

Detailed Response to Reviewers-检测控制

Reviewer #1: Comments to the authors:?The paper addresses the Fuzzy-Adaptive method for uncertain nonlinear systems. The idea proposed by authors is of interest. However, the authors must also take into consideration the ?following remarks:本文添加了对于非线性系统的模糊自适应方法，作者提出的该思想是有意义的，但是作者需将如下的备注考虑在内：1- In all Sigma (summations), this is better that the authors change the main sigma subscript variable for avoiding from confusing with other subscripts. for example in definitions after the ?equ. (1).? ?1.在所有的求和中，如果作者把主要变量的下标进行修改，以避免其与其他下标混淆，其效果将会更好，比如在定义的例题之后，或者方程(1).已经重新统一下标2- The variable "B_i" in equation (2) did not defined before or after the equation.? ?2.在方程(2)前后，作者并没有就该方程中的变量B i进行定义根据后面的要求，此段已经删除3- I think that the variable u_i(t) is correct instead u(t) in equ. (2).? ? 3.我认为变量代替方程(2)中的u(t)而写作u i(t)是正确的根据后面的要求，此段已经删除4- The results of substitution (3) in (1) or equation (4) is not correct, I think that "{" and "}" are ?used incorrectly in equ. (1).? ?4. 在方程(1)或(4)中用来(3)替代是不正确的，我想其中的{" and "}指的是？其在方程(1)中也被不正确的引用了根据后面的要求，此段已经删5- The results of equ. (4) Should be presented in more details for clearness to readers.? ?5.方程(4)中的结果应该为读者提供更多清晰的细节根据后面的要求，此段已经删除6- The variable f^_l and f^_r (or regression equation) should be defined before or after the ?equation (7).? ?6.回归方程里的变量f^_l和f^_r应该在方程(7)前后予以定义已经重新编排符号，重新定义7- After equ. (7), this is better that the definition x^(n)_r transferred to before equation (8) (after ?other definitions).? ?7.在方程(7)之后，在转移到方程(8)之前把x^(n)_r进行定义将会更好（之后或者其他定义）已经重新编排符号，重新定义8- The variable g^_l and g^_r (or regression equation) should be defined before or after the ?equation (9).? ?8. 回归方程里的变量g^_l和g^_r应该在方程(9)前后予以定义已经重新编排符号，重新定义9- In the equation (12) the subscript "i" should be start from 1 instead 2.? ?9.在方程(12)中，下标i应该从1开始而非2已经修改10- The simulation example is good but not enough for showing all characteristics of proposed ?methods. As we know when control gain (g(X)) is constant, the system is less sensitive and the ?control is simpler in proposed nonlinear system.? ?10．仿真实例的提供是好的，但并不能反映所有的论文中提供的方法的特性，众所周知，但我们的控制增益是常数的时候，系统较不敏感，其控制较提供的非线性系统较为简单本文通过对生物模型环状脑动脉问题的仿真，与Type-1 T-S系统比较，Type-2 T-S系统只需选择较少的规则数，隶属度函数的选择无需严格的条件，就能达到更好效果，优越性明显。

英语作文推荐小说

When recommending novels in an English essay,its important to consider the audience,the purpose of the recommendation,and the specific qualities of the novels that make them worth reading.Here are some steps and tips to include in your essay:1.Introduction:Start with a brief introduction to the genre or theme of the novels you are recommending.This sets the tone for the rest of the essay.2.Author Background:Provide some context about the authors of the novels.This can include their writing style,their other works,and any awards or recognitions they have received.3.Plot Summary:Give a concise summary of the plot without revealing any major spoilers.This should be engaging enough to pique the readers interest.4.Character Analysis:Discuss the main characters and their development throughout the story.Explain why these characters are compelling and how they contribute to the novels appeal.5.Themes and Messages:Explore the themes and messages that the novels convey. Discuss how these themes resonate with readers and why they are important.6.Writing Style:Comment on the authors writing style.Is it descriptive,poetic,or straightforward?How does the style enhance the reading experience?7.Cultural and Historical Context:If applicable,discuss the cultural or historical context of the novels.This can provide additional depth and understanding for the reader.8.Personal Reflection:Share your personal experience with the novels.What did you learn from them?How did they impact you?9.Recommendation Justification:Clearly state why you are recommending these novels. This could be due to their literary merit,their entertainment value,or their ability to provoke thought and discussion.10.Conclusion:End your essay with a strong conclusion that reinforces your recommendation.Encourage the reader to explore these novels for themselves.Heres a brief example of how you might structure a paragraph recommending a novel:In the realm of dystopian fiction,1984by George Orwell stands out as a timeless classic.Orwells portrayal of a totalitarian society where individualism is suppressed and surveillance is omnipresent is both chilling and thoughtprovoking.The protagonist, Winston Smith,undergoes a profound transformation that serves as a powerful commentary on the human spirits resilience in the face of oppression.Orwells writing is crisp and direct,allowing the reader to fully immerse themselves in the bleak world he has created.The themes of truth,freedom,and the power of language are as relevant today as they were when the novel was first published.I highly recommend1984for anyone seeking a profound and unsettling exploration of the potential consequences of unchecked government control.Remember to proofread your essay for clarity,coherence,and grammar.Happy writing!。

Guide for Authors-Nature Communications

Brief guide for submission to Nature CommunicationsThis guide outlines key points for preparing primary research manuscripts for submission to Nature Communications.The corresponding author should be familiar with the Nature journals’ editorial policies and is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and managing communication between coauthors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list and agree with its order, and that they are aware the manuscript is to be submitted. For more information on editorial and authorship policies please review our Guide to Authors. Cover letterAlthough optional, the cover letter is an excellent opportunity to briefly discuss the context and importance of the submitted work and why it is appropriate for the journal. Please avoid repeating information that is already present in the abstract and introduction. The cover letter is not shared with the referees, and should be used to provide confidential information, such as conflicts of interest, and to declare any related work that is in press or submitted elsewhere.Main manuscriptThe Nature journals are flexible with regard to the format of initial submissions. Within reason, style and length will not influence consideration of a manuscript. If revisions are requested, the editor will provide detailed formatting instructions at that time. For information on length and formatting consult Nature Communications' content types. Title.If possible, this should be 15 words or fewer and should not contain technical terms, abbreviations, punctuation and active verbs. Authors. Corresponding author(s) should be identified with an asterisk. Abstract. Provide a general introduction to the topic and a brief non-technical summary of your main results and their implication.Text length and formatting. Attention to the following details can help expedite publication if we invite a revision after external review. •Articles:an abstract of approximately 150 words, unreferenced;main text of no more than 5,000 words and 10 display items (figures, tables). As a guideline, Articles allow up to 70 references.Section headings should be used and subheadings should appear in 'Results' and ‘Methods’.Methods.The Methods section appears in all online original research articles and should contain all elements necessary for interpretation and replication of the results. Methods should be written as concisely as possible and typically do not exceed 3,000 words but may be longer if necessary. We encourage you to deposit any step-by-step protocols used in your study in Protocol Exchange, an open resource maintained by NPG. These protocols are linked to the Methods section upon publication.References.These may only contain citations and should list only one publication with each number. Include the title of the cited article or dataset.Acknowledgements (optional).Keep acknowledgements brief and do not include thanks to anonymous referees or editors, or effusive comments. Grant or contribution numbers may be acknowledged. Author contributions.You must include a statement that specifies the individual contributions of each co-author. For example: "A.P.M. ‘contributed’ Y and Z; B.T.R. ‘contributed’ Y,” etc. See our authorship policies for more details.Competing interests. Submission of a competing interests statement is required for all content of the journal.Materials & Correspondence.Indicate the author(s) to whom correspondence and material requests should be addressed.Tables. Each table should be prepared using the Table menu in Word or the table environment in TeX/LaTeX and accompanied by a short title sentence describing what the table shows. Further details can be included as footnotes to the table.FiguresHigh-resolution image files are not required at initial submission, but please ensure that images are of sufficient resolution for referees to properly assess the data. Should your manuscript be accepted, you will receive more extensive instructions for final submission of display items. However, some guidelines for final figure preparation are included below and here if you wish to minimize later revisions and possible delays.•Provide images in RGB color and at 300 dpi or higher resolution. •Use the same typeface (Arial or Helvetica) for all figures. Use symbol font for Greek letters.•Use distinct colors with comparable visibility and avoid the use of red and green for contrast. Recoloring primary data, such as fluorescence images, to color-safe combinations such as green and magenta or other accessible color palettes is strongly encouraged.Use of the rainbow color scale should be avoided.•Figures are best prepared at the size you would expect them to appear in print. At this size, the optimum font size is between 5pt and 8pt.•We prefer vector files with editable layers. Acceptable formats are: .ai, .eps, .pdf, .ps and .svg for fully editable vector-based art;layered .psd and .tif for editable layered art; .psd, .tif, .png and .jpg for bitmap images; .ppt if fully editable and without styling effects;ChemDraw (.cdx) for chemical structures.•Please use the Nature Research Chemical Structures Guide and ChemDraw template for formatting of chemical structures.Figure legends should be <350 words each. They should begin with a brief title sentence for the whole figure and continue with a short statement of what is depicted in the figure, not the results (or data) of the experiment or the methods used. Legends should be detailed enough so that each figure and caption can, as far as possible, be understood in isolation from the main text.Statistical informationComprehensive information on the statistical analyses used must be included in the paper. The Methods must include a statistics section where you describe the statistical tests used and whether they were one- or two-tailed. Please ensure that the error bars are defined throughout the figures. For all statistics (including error bars), provide the EXACT n values used to calculate the statistics (reporting individual values rather than a range if n varied among experiments). For representative results, report the number of times that the measurements were repeated. Where relevant, provide exact values for both significant and non-significant P values. For ANOVAs, provide F values and degrees of freedom. For t-tests, provide t-values and degrees of freedom. Please specifically define the replicates.Supplementary informationPlease submit supplementary figures, small tables and text as a single combined PDF document. Tables longer than one page should be provided as an Excel or similar file type. For optimal quality video files please use H.264 encoding, the standard aspect ratio of 16:9 (4:3 is second best) and do not compress the video. We encourage submission of step-by-step synthesis procedures for chemical compounds and data on compound characterization. Supplementary information is not copy-edited, so please ensure that it is clearly and succinctly presented, and that the style and terminology conform to the rest of the manuscript. Data availabilityPlease provide a data availability statement as a separate section after the Methods section but before the References, under the heading “Data Availability”; detailed guidance can be found in our data availability and data citations policy. Certain data types must be deposited in an appropriate public structured data depository (details are available here) and the accession number(s) provided in the manuscript. Full access is required at publication. Should full access to data be required for peer review, authors must provide it.We encourage provision of other source data in unstructured public depositories such as Dryad or figshare, or as supplementary information. To maximize data reuse, we encourage publication of detailed descriptions of datasets in Scientific Data.Crystallographic dataManuscripts reporting new crystallographic structures of small molecules must be accompanied by a standard .cif file. A structural figure with probability ellipsoids should be included in the main supplementary information file. The structure factors for each structure should also be submitted, preferably embedded in the main .cif file, although they may be provided as a separate .hkl and/or .fcf file. Use of the latest version of the program SHELXL, which embeds the structure factors information in the main .cif file, is encouraged. The structure factors and structural output must be checked using IUCr's CheckCIF routine and a pdf copy of the output supplied, explaining any A- or B-level alerts.Computer codeAny previously unreported custom computer code used to generate results reported in the manuscript that are central to the main claims must be made available to editors and reviewers upon request. Any practical issues preventing code sharing will be evaluated by the editors who reserve the right to decline the manuscript if important code is unavailable. At publication, Nature journals consider it best practice to release custom computer code in a way that allows readers to repeat the published results.Authors of such research papers will also be asked to fill out a code and software submission checklist that will be made available to editors and reviewers during manuscript assessment. The aim is to make studies that use such code more reliable by ensuring that all relevant documentation is available and by facilitating testing of software by the reviewers. Further detailed guidance and required documentation at submission and acceptance of the manuscript can be found here.For all studies using custom code that is deemed central to the conclusions, a statement must be included under the heading "Code availability", indicating whether and how the code can be accessed, including any restrictions to access. Code availability statements should be provided as a separate section after the data availability statement but before the References.Reporting guidelinesTo improve the transparency of reporting and the reproducibility of published results, authors of life sciences, behavioural & social sciences and ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences research articles must provide a completed reporting summary that will be made available to editors and reviewers during manuscript assessment. The reporting summary will be published with all accepted manuscripts. Guidance and resources related to the use and reporting of statistics are available here.All authors must also complete an editorial policy checklist to ensure compliance with Nature Research editorial policies.Please note: because of the advanced features used in these forms, you must use Adobe Reader to open the documents and fill them out, instead of opening them in a web browser.Other reporting checklistTo improve the transparency of reporting and the reproducibility of published results in certain other research areas, you may be asked to complete a different checklist and provide the requested information prior to peer review.Source dataFor relevant manuscripts, we may request a source data file in Microsoft Excel format or a zipped folder. The source data file should, as a minimum, contain the raw data underlying any graphs and charts, and uncropped versions of any gels or blots presented in the figures. Within the source data file, each figure or table (in the main manuscript and in the Supplementary Information) containing relevant data should be represented by a single sheet in an Excel document, or a single .txt file or other file type in a zipped folder. Blot and gel images should be pasted in and labelled with the relevant panel and identifying information such as the antibody used. We also encourage authors to include any other types of raw data that may be appropriate. An example source data file is available demonstrating the correct format. Human subject dataIf you are reporting phase II or phase III randomized controlled trials you must refer to the CONSORT Statement for recommendations to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trial findings. Reports that do not conform to the CONSORT guidelines may need to be revised before peer review.We encourage authors reporting prognostic studies with tumor markers to follow the REMARK reporting guidelines.Before the start of patient enrollment prospective clinical trials must be registered in or a similar public repository that matches ISMJE criteria and the trial registration number reported in the manuscript. (Trials in which the primary goal is to determine pharmacokinetics are exempt.)For describing human biospecimens, we recommend referring to the BRISQ reporting guidelines and ensuring at least Tier 1 characteristics are provided (doi: 10.1002/cncy.20147).Related manuscriptsIt is a requirement of submission that you alert us to any related manuscripts with overlapping authorship that are under consideration (including under appeal) or in press at other journals (see our editorial policies on duplicate submissions for details). Copies of these manuscripts should be clearly marked and included as separate files with your submission. Abstracts or other unrefereed preprints do not compromise novelty.Preprint serversNature Research journals support posting of primary research manuscripts on community preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv. We do, however, ask you to respect our policies on posting, citation and licensing of preprints.Transparent peer reviewFor published original research articles, the reviewer comments to the authors and the author rebuttal letters of revised versions are published online as a supplementary "peer review file". Authors may opt out of this scheme at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted. If the manuscript was transferred to us from another Nature journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or author rebuttals of versions of the manuscript under consideration at the originating Nature journal. For more information, please refer to our FAQ page. Reviewer informationIn recognition of the time and expertise our reviewers provide to Nature Communications’ editorial process, as of November, 2018, we formally acknowledge their contribution to the external peer review of articles published in the journal. All peer-reviewed content will carry an anonymous statement of peer reviewer acknowledgement, and for those reviewers who give their consent, we will publish their names alongside the published article. We will continue to publish peer reviewer reports where authors opt in to our separate transparent peer review scheme. In cases where authors opt in to publication of peer reviewer comments and reviewers opt in to being named, we will not link a reviewer’s name to their report unless they choose to sign their comments to the author with their name. For more information, please refer to our FAQ page. Double-blind peer reviewTo participate in double-blind peer review, please prepare your manuscript in a way that conceals the identities of all the authors (see checklist) and tick the appropriate box during online submission. Please note that editors do not ensure that the paper is properly anonymized; that is the responsibility of the authors.Transferring your manuscriptIf an editor is unable to offer publication of your manuscript, you have the opportunity to transfer all manuscript materials, the decision letter and any referee comments to a selection of Springer Nature journals without re-entering submission information. Use the link in your decision letter to explore suggested alternative journals. You may then initiate the transfer process to the journal of your choice or submit elsewhere. Please see this page for more information.AppealsAuthors who feel that they have strong grounds for appealing a decision may contact the journal to request the opening of an appeal, after which they may upload a cogently argued rebuttal letter that addresses the referees’ and/or editor’s comments in a point-by-point manner. Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced thatthe original decision was made in error, or if critical new information or data has been added.Comments on published articlesImportant scientific comments and clarifications on content published in Nature Communications may be submitted as Correspondence. Questions and manuscript submissionGeneral editorial enquiries should be addressed to the Editor at naturecommunications@. Manuscripts should be submitted through our online submission system. Further submission details are available here.Open accessAs of January 2016, the journal only publishes open access content, and legacy subscription content published in Nature Communications prior to 2016 has been made freely accessible. All articles are published under a CC BY license (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). We offer APC waivers for papers whose corresponding authors are based in the world’s lowest income countries as defined by the World Bank. Discretionary APC waivers for authors will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and may be granted in cases of financial need. All applications for discretionary APC waivers should be made at the point of manuscript submission; requests made during the review process or after acceptance will not be considered. To request a waiver please contact apcwaivers@. Full details of our APC waiver and discount policies can be found here.。

研究生学术英语写作教程Unit 10 Submitting Paper

Unit Ten Submitting PaperObjectives- Know the paper processing procedures- Become aware of politeness in letter writing- Write a submission cover letter and reply to the decision letterContents- Reading and discussion: A submission cover letter and a decision letter.- Language focus: politeness- Writing practice: submission cover letter; reply to a decision letter; inquiry letter 1.Reading ActivityYour research paper is finished. The next step is to submit the paper to a suitable academic journal. This unit aims to show you the review procedure, hopefully bring you an awareness of two language features of academic writing, and finally help you correspond with the edit-in-chief on your own.1.1Pre-reading TaskBefore you learn the detailed information, please discuss the following questions.What should you consider about the journal you are going to submit the paper to?What should you do to your paper before submission?What should be included in your submission E-mail?How can we sound polite when we write the submission cover letter and reply to the decision letter?1.2Reading PassagesLetter 1--A submission cover letterDear Dr. James Joyce,This is a manuscript entitled "A NOVEL ROOT-END FILLING MATERIAL BASED ON HYDROXYAPATITE, TETRACALCIUM PHOSPHATE ANDPOLYACRYLIC ACID " by Ling Huchong and Qiao Feng from State KeyLaboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and MedicalEngineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China. It is submitted to beconsidered for publication as an "Original Article" in your journal.No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part.In this work, we developed a novel filling materialhydroxyapatite/tetracalcium phosphate/polyacrylic acid cement (HA/TTCP/PAA), and further examined its chemical composition, physical properties andcytotoxicity in comparison with glass ionomer cement (GIC) and Portland cement (PC). I hope this paper is suitable for “INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTICJOURNAL”.The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:1) Professor Duan Yu E-mail: duanyu@2) Professor Shi Tai E-mail: shitai@We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries,please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Enclosed please find the paper.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,Ling HuchongCorresponding author:Prof. Dr. Qiao FengState Key Laboratory of BioelectronicsSchool of Biological Science and Medical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjing 210096P.R. ChinaTel: (+8625) 12345678Fax: (+8625) 12345678E-mail: qiaofeng@1.3Reading Comprehension1.3.1List the contents that should be included in letter 1.①___________________________________________________________________②___________________________________________________________________③___________________________________________________________________④___________________________________________________________________⑤___________________________________________________________________⑥___________________________________________________________________Letter 2----A decision letterFrom:iejeditor@To:Qiao Feng@CC:Ling Huchong@Subject:Manuscript ID IEJ-12-00123, International Endodontic JournalBody:Dear Dr. Qiao,Manuscript ID: IEJ-12-00123Manuscript Title: Hydroxyapatite/Tetracalcium Phosphate/Polyacrylic Acid Cement:Chemical-Physical Properties and CytotoxicityI have received the comments of the referees(s) and decided that your manuscript requiresmajor changes and then go through the refereeing process again. However, please note thatresubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance.Should you wish to revise and resubmit your manuscript, please revise your paper takinginto account any points they have raised - their comments can be found at the end of thisemail. Also double check that in the body of the text and in the Reference section thenames of authors are spelt correctly including any non-English characters whereappropriate.You will be unable to make your revisions online using the originally submitted version ofthe manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript on your PC/MAC using your wordprocessing programme and save it on your computer. Please highlight the changes to yourmanuscript within the document by using the "track changes" mode in MS Word orequivalent.To upload your revised manuscript, log on to /iej andenter your Author Centre, where you will find your original manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referees(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you have made to the original manuscript. Please be as specific as possible in your response to the referee(s).I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regardsPaul DummerEditor-in-Chief,International Endodontic Journaliejeditor@Editor comments to authors:EditorComments to the Author:(There are no comments.)Referee(s) comments to authors:Referee: 1Comments to AuthorTitle: Hydroxyapatite/Tetracalcium Phosphate/Polyacrylic Acid Cement:Chemical-Physical Properties and CytotoxicityThis manuscript introduces the reader to a new retrograde filling material and describes the tests that were conducted and the comparison to currently used materials. The section Discussion was well done and discussed the relevance of each test to published research as well as relevant clinical applications.It would be helpful if the title would reflect that this report is on a root end filling material.General comment. The entire manuscript needs to be edited for proper use of the English language and syntax.IntroductionThe sentence: “However, its defects prohibit clinical applications…..”. The word “defect” is an odd choice. “shortcomings” would be more appropriate.The sentence: “To overcome these disadvantages, a new material,hydroxyapatite/tetracalciumphosphate/polyacrylic acid cement (HA/TTCP/PAA), with optimum properties, has been developed.”Authors you are reporting on your findings of your novel cement but already conclude in this Introduction that it has “optimum properties”. At best you can state that it was your intent to develop a material with optimum or improved properties.Authors: Check instructions for authors for the required journal format for referring to the published literature.Materials and MethodsThe sentence: “The HA/TTCP/PAA paste was mixed….and the mixed wit h distilled water…” Authors, after you have crushed the powders it makes no sense to describe the HA/TTCP/PAA as a paste.“The paste of HA/TTCP/PAA, GIC and GPC were placed into a plastic plate… 37°C in 100%” Authors, use better description than “plastic plate”.“The final setting time was the average result of five sample specimens.” The words sample and specimens are synonymous.“Compressive strength was calculated from the mean value of five samples of each group”. You probably mean to say that the m ean value for each group was derived from the 5 samples.“The materials were set in the molds for 24 h at 37°C in 100%humidity”. The meaning the materials were set is not clear. Please explain this method better.“The HA/TTCP/PAA, GIC and GPC pastes we re manually shaped separately into an 8 mm diameter ball within 1 min….” Authors, it would be better to describe this as follows: At standard liquid/powder ratios each material was mixed and immediately, but within 1 min, manipulated into a ball.Although the test that was described lacks any scientific foundation, the figures were convincing.“The unreactive supernatants in the well were carefully sucked off, and 600 μL ….” Authors, use a better word than “sucked off” to remove the supernatants.Washout resistance test“The washout resistance result for the HA/TTCP/PAA showed no noticeable disintegration (figure 4); however, GIC paste balls had a large amount of debris…”Replace the word “debris”. The actual release of particles or dissolution of the GIC cannot be called debris.“Different from HA/TTCP/PAA, GIC was water sensitive during setting phase, which was supported in the present study by a large sum of debris around its paste ball in PBS, and suggested in Earl and Ibbetson’s study by its easy damage in the early moist setting (Bodrumlu 2008)”. This reviewer does not understand the connection between Earl and Ibbetson’s study and the reference made to Bodrumlu. Please clarify.The figures have no numbers. See pages 19-23 of the pdf.Referee: 2Comments to AuthorMarch 24, 2012Title: Hydroxyapatite/Tetracalcium Phosphate/Polyacrylic Acid Cement:Chemical-Physical Properties and CytotoxicityMs. #: IEJ-12-00-00123GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:Writing: Word use and grammar are at journal standards and need to be improved throughout.Organization: GoodOther: Avoid the use of +/- to express variation. The preferred method is mean (stdev). For example: 11.0 (0.8) min. The discussion is too long and over-zealous relative to the experimental data (see specifics below).CONTENTTitle1. OKAbstract1. The conclusion statement should be modified to say that it has low cytotoxicity. Biocompatibility was not adequately evaluated to make the current statement. Also should say it IS promising, not MAYBE promising. The latter makes no sense.Introduction1. OK, except for the writing inadequacies.Methods1. p. 5, ll. 22: It is unclear how the washout test was quantified. Please describe more thoroughly.2. p. 5, ll. 11: How do the authors know that the Et2O treatment didn't affect the biological properites of the the materials? It seems it would have been better3. p. 5, MTT assay. The 5 mg/mL concentration exposed to L929 for 4 h can be cytotoxic by itself. How did the authors control for this potential problem?Results1. Fig, p. 20 (pH). Statistical analyses need to be shown on this graph.2. Fig. p. 22 (cytotoxicity). These figures are too small for me to really evaluate thoroughly.3. Table 1: heading suggests that setting times are compare, but I believe this is an error. It seems that only CS is compared. Please check.Discussion/Conclusions1. First paragraph, p. 8 (setting). This paragraph seems speculative and askance of the experimental data for the most part. Please rewrite to relate more specifically to the XRD and IR data.2. Paragraph , p. 9 (washout). This paragraph also is speculative and the analysis exceeds the experimental data. The best that can be said here is that the HA/TTCP/PAA cement shows promised in terms of its relative wash-out resistance.3. Paragraph, p. 9/10 (pH). This text cannot be evaluated without statistical analysis of the data.4. Biocompatibility (p. 10). The authors have done 2 tests, but they are really measuring the same thing they way they were performed (both assess the cell mass). Thus the discussion claims are overstated in terms of the utility of these two tests. A moreconvincing story would be to evaluate the materials much longer-term (say after 4 weeksor longer). This should be mentioned in the discussion-- many individual have publishedresults with longer terms.5. Conclusions: are overstated. The authors should restrict their claims to say that the newmaterial shows promise relative to GIC and GPC. Little is possible to conclude beyondthat!References1. OKIllustrations (and Tables)Table 1: eliminate +/- signs and replace as suggested above. Transpose table to put thetimes along the top and the materials down the side. More effective.Fig 1: Helpful to vertically spread out the figure so that there is more space between tracesat different times.Fig 2: wavenumber labels are too crowded to bottom curve. Add space.Fig. 3: Add stats to graph. I suggest that this would be better plotted as a line graph (pH vs.time), and avoid all the different column fills and crowded legend, which are verydistracting.Fig. 4. Unclear what the top vs. bottom rows are without looking at caption. Please label.Fig. 5 ab. Separate these into separate figures. Make them bigger, please. Complete thegraph frame. Eliminate box around the legend. Space between numbers and units on thex-axes. (e.g. 48 h, not 48h). Use of lowercase letter labels would be more effective than allthe lines to show statistical differences.Date Sent:03-Apr-20121.3.2Understanding letter 2Main idea:____________________________________________________________ The author should①___________________________________________________________________②___________________________________________________________________③___________________________________________________________________④___________________________________________________________________nguage Focus：Politeness2.1 Highlight the polite expressions in the two letters.2.2 Make a response to the reviewer's comments in a polite way. The following sentence patterns are only for reference.We are very sorry for our negligence of ………We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ………It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……Special thanks to you for your good comments.1. The entire manuscript needs to be edited for proper use of the English language and syntax._____________________________________________________________________2.Check instructions for authors for the required journal format for referring to the published literature._____________________________________________________________________3.Avoid the use of +/- to express variation.__________________________________________________________________________________ 3.Writing project3.1The following is a cover letter template for submission of new manuscripts.Please write a cover letter for submission of your own research paper with this template.A cover letter template for submission of new manuscriptsDear Dr. Kravitz and Dr. Feldman,Paragraph 1: Overview (Article title, type, design, major finding)“We are pleased to submit our manuscript entitled: “XXX”, for consideration as a [journal article type – for instance, original article or systematic review]. [Include one sentence on study design, where relevant. Example follows]. “This study is a retrospective cohort study, comparing X outcomes of Y patients from Z health systems, from 19XX to 20XX. We found/illustrate [major finding or conclusion].”Paragraph 2: Context: Some authors will not need this paragraph.Ask yourself, what information would aid the editors in their decision-making process? Are there contextual factors that might inform the editors? Items for this paragraph might include potential conflicts, concurrent submissions from the same dataset, interestedgroups/history, and what this manuscript contributes to the field beyond work published, submitted, or in preparation by your group.Examples:∙Manuscripts from the same data set being submitted somewhere else, or you are planning to submit a related article elsewhere (all media types). This helps us think about your study in context.“This manuscript is one of three papers describing the major findings of our study on XXXX outcomes in HIV populations. One paper on biologic outcomes XXX is under review at XXX journal, while another qualitative paper describing the experience of men and women undergoing XXX treat ment is under preparation for submission to XXX. The XXX funder’s website has published an abstract with preliminary data from our annual report.”∙How work was developed (i.e. an organization encouraged project for a specific purpose].“This secondary data analysis is culled from a prior study of quality of XXX care [reference] . . . and was triggered by work I had done for the Department of Health. They wanted to put navigators in place to reduce delays in XXX process in state hospitals but had no recent data about actual times to treatment. When we looked at our data, we were surprised to find that women with Medicaid did not receive worse care than women with commercial or Medicare insurance...”Appendices that you have included for online publication only.“Given space restrictions, we have included our survey instruments and an extended set of blinded qualitative comments for inclusion as online appendices. Additionally, I’m enclosing a multi-media DVD that can be uploaded to the publisher’s website. The login and password for this curriculum are….”Paragraph 3: ImportanceWhy should this manuscript be published in ***? Why will our readers be interested? What is the potential impac t of your work (don’t overstate it)? What is the unique contribution of your work to what is known about this topic? This should be 1-4 sentences. All authors should include this information.Paragraph 4: Current submission and prior presentation disclosure“This manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration in the same or substantially similar form in any other peer-reviewed media.” If relevant: “We presented an earlier version of the manuscript as a poster/plenary/workshop at the [conference name] in [location], in 20XX.”Paragraph 5: Authorship and conflictsAcknowledge authorship and conflicts appropriately. From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (): Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.“All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and all those who are qualified to be authors are listed in the author byline. To the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other, exists. We have included acknowledgements, conflicts of interest, and funding sources after the discussion. [Where relevant, include your NIH study registry number.] Our NIH study registry number is XXX.”Sincerely,Corresponding authorContact information (title, group affiliation, physical address, email, phone, fax) Back-up contact (name, phone, email)Dear3.2Write a cover letter to reply to letter 2.3.3You submitted your paper "A NOVEL ROOT-END FILLING MATERIALBASED ON HYDROXYAPATITE, TETRACALCIUM PHOSPHATE AND POLYACRYLIC ACID "(ID: IEJ-12-00123) 2 month ago, but the status has been "with editor" for 1 month. Write an inquiry letter of the review.4.Final ChecklistThis checklist is for you to make sure that you are ready to submit the paper or make the revision. Tick the item if it is done.1 Does your submission cover letter include author information,declaration, and paper title?2 Is your research focus highlighted?3 Is your paper enclosed in the E-mail?4 Are you polite in cover letter writing?5 Do you understand the editor's decision?6 Do you understand details of reviewers' suggestions?7 Do you make point-to-point revision to your paper?8 Are you polite in response to the reviewer's comments, even if you donot agree with them?。

英文论文写作及投稿技巧章节座

Abstract
Am. J. Physiol. An one-paragraph abstract of not more than 170 words. It must state concisely what was done and why (including species and state of anesthesia), what was found (in terms of data, if space allows), and what was concluded. Three key words for use in the reviewing process
top of every page. Limit: 45 characters. Authors and full location of department and institution. Grant Support—List grant support and other assistance. Abbreviations—List alphabetically abbreviations not mentioned in the Slly written last because that is when a global view of the work can be achieved. It contains a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the manuscript to enable readers to survey the article rapidly. The best abstracts correctly reflect the purpose and scope of the manuscript, including what was done, why and how, what the results were, and what the implications of the findings are.

审稿人意见

Reviewer comments:Reviewer #1 (Technical Comments to the Author):Please see comments to the Author. Regarding the question "Is the manuscript written clearly using Standard English?" - there are some minor grammatical errors that can be easily corrected.Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):In the manuscript by Kong and colleagues, the authors investigate the potential contribution of the NAD-SIRT1 pathway to cocaine reward. The authors report that NAMPT, NAD, NMN and SIRT1 are elevated in the VTA with cocaine CPP and that cocaine reward (as measured by CPP) is blunted when NAMPT was inhibited during training. Further, overexpressing NAMPT, supplementing NMN or performing the experiment in SIRT1 knockout mice overcame this effect. The manuscript reports an interesting, thoroughly investigated finding. However, several questions need to be addressed:1. How were CPP scores calculated? Further, the variable strength of CPP is a concern, ranging from 160 to 550 seconds within a 900 second test across experiments. An example would be the Veh/Coc group in Fig. 2A and the GFP/Coc group in Fig. 3B. Were the same Methods used across CPP experiments?2. The full statistics, not just p values, need to be reported.3. Please show cannula placement for infusions with FK866 and GFP spread with lentivirus injection.4. Do the authors mean "intra-VTA" when "intracerebrally" is used? It is not clear from the Methods if this is the case for the cannulation experiments.5. Figure 1B does not have brain region labels.6. Is there a significant difference in Fig. 5 between the Con/Coc and FK866+Sal/Coc groups? 6. Figure 6 is confusing. Why are the statistical comparisons being made to saline-treated animals, rather than between the cocaine-associated experimental groups? Further, can the authors comment on why there is no increase in NAD with LV-NAMPT?Reviewer #2 (Technical Comments to the Author):Kong et al. make significant insights into the molecular pathway through which cocaine induces its rewarding effects in the Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA). In particular, they establish a model whereby cocaine-induced condition place preference (CPP) results in an up-regulation in nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT), an enzyme which mediates the conversation of nicotinamide to nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) followed by the conversion to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), which ultimately results in the NAD-mediated activation of Sirt1. Furthermore, the authors show evidence that NAMPT mediates cocaine-conditioning in a Sirt1-dependent manner.This body of work nicely integrates a number of behavioral, pharmacological, transgenic, and biochemical approaches to establish and interrogate their model for NAMPT-mediated activation of Sirt1 during cocaine conditioning. As far as I know, although Sirt1's role in mediating cocaine-induced place conditioning as been heavily studied before, surprisingly little had been known regarding the cocaine-induced signaling cascade that occurs immediately upstream of Sirt1 activation. Moreover, as far as I know, this is the first paper to demonstrate the involvement of NAMPT and NAD in cocaine reward. Yet, there are corrections and additions that can be made to this manuscript that would serve to improve the way these findings are communicated to the reader. Importantly, after noticing numerous erroneous citations, possibly owed to a citation manager error, I have very little confidence in the veracity of the citations throughout this paper. Special attention should be made to identifyand correct all citation errors.Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):1. For the first paragraph in the introduction (page 3, paragraph 1, third sentence), change the sentence to "The nucleus accumbens (NAc) is another important region in the brain's reward circuitry...".2. For the second paragraph in the introduction (page 3, paragraph 2, first sentence), the citations (7,8) do not support the claim that NAT is "critical for neuronal energy metabolism and survival"; in fact the focus of citation #7's paper was not neurons, but rather, beta-cells. Please add the appropriate supporting citations or remove this sentence from the introduction.3. There are a number of grammatical errors that should be addressed. The authors would benefit greatly by consulting someone for whom English is their first language.4. Figure 7, the LV-NAMPT-COC and LV-GFP-COC labels are switched, correct this.5. Citation 38, as cited in the first sentence found on page 13 was likely mistakenly included.6. Citation 19 on page 4, is inappropriate and should be changed, as this review paper merely mentions H4K16, without referencing H3K9 and H3K14.7. Citation 12 on page 4 is, inappropriate and should be changed, as the Michan et al (2010) paper does not involve a single cocaine-related experiment.8. Citation 22 on page 4, is absolutely incorrect and misleading, as cocaine studies were not involved in the Gao et al. (2010) paper.9. In page 5, change the sentence to "NAMPT expression in different brain regions was first investigated by western blotting analysis.10. X-axis labels appear to be missing from figure 1B (i.e., forebrain, striatum, hippocampus).11. In page 5 the term "forehead cortex" was used, this should be corrected.12. The apparent reduction in NAMPT in NAc at 30 min looks significant; what was the p-value?13. In page 5, you mention that FK866 can permeate the blood-brain-barrier. Please cite an appropriate reference for this assertion.14. Consider changing the third sentence to the following: To further explore the capacity of VTA-specific inhibition of NAMPT to diminish the beneficial response to cocaine, the VTA was intracerebrally infused with FK866...".15. Why are the CPP scores in Fig 2C almost exactly half the magnitude of those in Figure 2A?16. The phrase "and the more visualized result" sounds awkward and should be corrected.17. Throughout the paper the term "forementioned" should be replaced with "aforementioned".18. In figure 2 it was shown that LV-NAMPT increased CPP. With this being the case, if, as figure 6 demonstrates, increasing NAMPT levels do not result in a subsequent increase in tNAD does this suggest that the NAMPT over-expression-mediated enhancement in CPP is not mediated by NAD?Editorial Board Member comments:The authors are encouraged to carefully address comments in particular regarding the reporting of histology results, statistics, and proper referencing. The authors should also work with an editor whose native language is English in order to eliminate typographical, stylistic, and grammatical errors from the manuscript.。

Resolution of comments (response to reviewer)(response to editor)

Some additional text has been added to highlight some of the limitations of the method proposed in [11]in Section I.
3. In P1 C2 L60, “---- - different methods”. I guess, “Six” is missing.
The basic method for calculating phase-angle versus time is not new. It was used already before it was published in [7] and discussed in several IEEE working group during the 90’s, but probably not published. Also in [14] the method for calculating phase angle versus time is discussed and the method has been applied there to several measured dips.
Yes, it should be“six different methods”. It has been revised in the new revision.
4.How the propose methods (M4-M6) would be applicable for type B and E. If single phase to ground fault occurs in phase ‘a’ then faulted phase voltage would be:

一篇IEEE论文评审意见

We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unableto accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions.Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that shouldserve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee.I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although wecould not accept this paper, we hope that you will considerTransactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future.We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society.COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:Editor's Comments:EditorEditor Comments for Author:The paper has received in general bad reviews. Much of the criticism has been caused by the problems with the English language. It is recommended to the authors that before they submit papers to the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery touse professional proofreading services.Reviewers' Comments:Reviewer: 1Comments to the AuthorAuthors have presented a method to improve the measurement accuracy of mutual inductance transmission line parameters. However, reviewer has not found enough new research work performed by authors to be published in IEEE transactions ofPower Delivery.The authors have compared their method with NPFM method, which is not explained that how it works. Further, authors have not provided enough latest references of the NPFM method.In the introduction section, authors have mentioned that the TTM method performance is affected by multi-circuit line, but they have not shown the performance of the proposed method in this case.In the section II, the subsections A and B are not having much significant role in the proposed work.In the section II, subsection C; authors have explained the proposed algorithm. In that subsection, equations 18 to 22 are not new. They have already been derived in the past. Please refer a paper of - Niranjan Kumar, A. K. Sahani,“Microprocessor Based Measurement of Π-Model Transmission Line Parameters Under Fault Conditions”, IET-UK International Conference on Information and Communication Technology in Electrical Sciences (ICTES 2007), Dr. M.G.R. University,Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Dec. 20-22, 2007, pp. 389-392.Hence, reviewer has not found enough new research work done by the authors in this subsection.Reviewer: 2Comments to the AuthorAuthors have presented a method of adaptive single ended sweep measurement which can be used for measuring the mutual inductance transmission line parameters.(i) There are many grammatical errors in the abstract as well as in the introduction. Further, introduction is written in very poor form. Most importantly, connectivity is missing between each section as well as between each sentence.(i) The authors have not clarified what their novelty is.Reviewer: 3Comments to the AuthorThis paper presents a method for transmission line mutual inductance parameters estimation. Following the authors, the method considers the shunt capacitive effect on the transmission line model, which is ignored by the ´traditionalmethods´. The proposed method, following the authors, is based on ´non-linear frequency response analysis of transmission line parameters´. This reviewer has the following comments/questions:- The theoretical analysis presents the behavior of isolated and three-phase conductors impedance with relation to the frequency. On both analyses, AC and DC resistances and inductances are shown in respect with Frequency. A LGJQ-300wire is given as example. It is not clear how this frequency selection is automatically done by the method for different wire types. As presented the frequency choice seems to be empirical. An explanation on such could be included on themanuscript;- Equations (20)-(22) are adequate for single phase systems modeled with lumped parameters. The extended equations for 3 phase systems should be presented in the manuscript ;- Long Transmission lines should be modeled with frequency dependent distributed parameters at the selected frequency range (300-800Hz). Comments on such approximation should be included in the manuscript;- By selecting the ´best test frequency´, the method makes some considerations about the resistance and inductance behavior of wires. However the resistance and inductance behavior of the three phase lines are dependent, between others,on geometric and construction parameters. Equation 13 provides such relation. It is not clear how the estimated resistance and inductance values (which equations are not presented), will be used together with the line frequencycharacteristic curves to provide the mutual inductance parameter. Detail explanation on such should be provided on the manuscript;- It is not clear on the proposed method, how the estimated values are compensated from the mutual inductance effect. An explanation on such could be included on the manuscript;- Different geometric configurations and operating conditions will produce different mutual inductance values. A discussion on such, based on test results, could be included on the manuscript;- No reference for the so called NPFM method is presented. Such reference should be in the manuscript;- A complete grammatical text review could improve greatly the manuscript readability. Figure 4 text should read inductance instead of resistance;Reviewer: 4Comments to the Author(There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.)。