国际学术期刊投稿术语与流程_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
国际学术期刊投稿术语与流程
上传于||文档简介
&&国​际​学​术​期​刊​投​稿​术​语​与​流​程​ ​S​C​I​ ​ ​论​文​ ​必​备​知​识
阅读已结束，如果下载本文需要使用1下载券
想免费下载本文？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便
还剩1页未读，继续阅读
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢关注今日：8 | 主题：503603
微信扫一扫
扫一扫，下载丁香园 App
即送15丁当
【求助】大修后被拒，我该怎么办？想再争取一次机会，请前辈指点迷津！
页码直达：
这个帖子发布于7年零114天前，其中的信息可能已发生改变或有所发展。
投journal of epidemiology，大修后被拒，以下是decision letterI write you in regards to manuscript # JE-.R1 entitled &Analysis of Serum Levels of 14 Trace Elements in Breast Cancer Patients& which you submitted to the Journal of Epidemiology. In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has been denied publication in the Journal of Epidemiology. Thank you for considering the Journal of Epidemiology for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts. Sincerely, Dr. Tomotaka Sobue Editor in Chief, Journal of Epidemiology eic@jea-je.jp Editor Comments to Author: 1.In the revised manuscript, the authors stated that women who had a history of previous exposure to heavy metals were excluded from controls. It is highly likely that this introduced serious selection bias. 2. The reviwer requested the inclusion of ecological studies, but there is no description about this. 3.Other points raised by the review were not revised fully. Therefore,　with regret, I must inform you that we have decided that your manuscript cannot be accept for publication in the Journal Epidemiology. 问题1我可以解释，病例和对照组都没无重金属暴露史，原来没说清楚。但是为什么第一次大修时没提？问题2说我没加审稿人要求的inclusion of ecological studies，可是在第一次修回我加了We have referred the results of ecological studies to clarify the geographic varaition in breast cancer incidence rates.Within the USA, white female breast cancer incidence rates ranged from 105.0 per 100,000 in Mississippi to 153.0 in the District of Columbia. 是我理解错了？他要的ecological studies到底指的是什么？问题3说审稿人的其它问题没fully revised，笼统得没法回答。
下面是第一次decision letter，请各位前辈帮我看看。We have completed our review of your manuscript and discussed it with other members of the editorial staff. We do not believe it is suitable in its present form for publication in the Journal of Epidemiology. However, we would consider a revised version after the reviewers' comments are answered. Reviewer and Editor Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author This study investigated associations between serum levels of 14 trace elements and breast cancer risk based on a case-control study in China. It is interesting to examine whether trace elements are associated with the risk of breast cancer. However, this study has several methodological issues: 1) it included small number of cases, 2) they used serum level after breast cancer diagnosis as an exposure assessment, which might have been influenced by metabolic changes and/or by altered eating habit, and 3) there was lack of information on potential confounders. These issues made it difficult to assess the study question adequately. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author General comments: 1.Authors should show the objective of the present study among breast cancer patients, not the patients with other sites of cancer. Authors need to state the working hypothesis to evaluate the impact of trace elements on breast cancer risk more detailed, although authors mentioned the possibility of biological carcinogenic processes by trace elements in “Introduction”. If authors plan to clarify the geographic variation in breast cancer incidence rates, authors would do well to refer the results for ecological studies. 2.Author should show characteristics of study population. Study subjects came from the population residing in and around Jinan. Did healthy control women have a similar age distribution to the cases based on frequency match ? ‘Age’ is the most important factor since metabolism and total exposure level of trace elements depend on age. Authors should state the means and standard deviations of age among case and control group. 3.Authors should give a more detailed description of statistical analysis. The Student’s t-test should be applied on condition that data obtained show normal distribution. Did authors checked the distribution of measurement data of trace elements ? Did authors experience the outliers ? Bias in handling outliers is serious issues. Similarly, detection limit is an important problem. Authors should mentioned data processing and analytical method in detail. Minor comments: 1.Authors should refer the appropriate references that changes in serum levels of trace elements have been observed in breast cancer patients. (Page 3, line 11) Comments from Editorial Board: Ｂｅｓｉｄｅｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｍｍｅｎｔｓ　from the reviewers, we would like you to add the details of selection of controls and discuss the posibility of selection bias. 我想argue，请前辈指点如何回复问题2和问题3，不胜感激！
不知道邀请谁？试试他们
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
neurojm edited on
以下是第一次major revision我的修回Response to Reviewer 1’s comments:1) and 2). The reviewer has pinpointed what should be done in further studies. The present study is our preliminary study. We need the results of the preliminary study to support our plan of further prospective studies which will include a larger sample size and use serum level of trace elements before breast cancer diagnosis. We have considered the review’s concerns, and we think the sample size and the serum level after breast cancer diagnosis used in our study still could demonstrate our point, though not completely.3). Information on potential confounders has been added. Table 1: Characteristics of the subjectsResponse to Reviewer 2’s general comments:1. We have focused on the objective of the study among breast cancer patients, and deleted patients with other sites of cancer. We have added the working hypothesis to evaluate the impact of trace elements on breast cancer risk. Trace elements may contribute to increased risk of breast cancer by influencing oxidative DNA damage caused by reactive oxygen species. Oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation may play a role in breast carcinogenesis. Malondialdehyde, the major endproduct of peroxidative breakdown of polyunsaturated fatty acids, has been shown to be significantly increased in the blood of breast cancer patients compared to that of controls.27,28 Levels of malondialdehyde-DNA adducts have also been shown to be significantly higher in normal breast tissue from breast cancer patients compared to normal breast tissue from control women.29 Moreover, levels of 15-F2tisoprostane,another marker of lipid peroxidation, were positively associated with risk of breast cancer.30 Besides, Majewska et al.31 found an enhancement of many trace elements in cancerous breast tissue and suggested that these elements compete for the binding sites in the cell, change its enzymatic activity and exert direct or indirect action on the carcinogenic progress accelerating the growth of tumors and that the inhibition of enzymes caused by variation in trace element concentrations results in immunological breakdown of the body system.We have referred the results of ecological studies to clarify the geographic varaition in breast cancer incidence rates.Within the USA, white female breast cancer incidence rates ranged from 105.0 per 100,000 in Mississippi to 153.0 in the District of Columbia.2. We have added the characteristics of the subjects. The healthy control women had a similar age distribution to the cases based on frequency match. We have added the means and SD of age among case and control group. Table 1: Characteristics of the subjects3. We have added description of statistical analysis. The distribution of measurement data of trace elements was checked and showed normal distribution. We did not experience outliers. We have added the detection limits. Detection limits were 0.0174 ug/mL for Zn, 0.0041 ug/mL for Mn, 0.0072 ug/mL for Al, 0.0048 ug/mL for Cd, 0.0106 ug/mL for Fe, 0.032 ug/mL for Mg, 0.016 ug/mL for Ca, 0.0193 ug/mL for Pb, 0.0033 ug/mL for Cu, 0.0032 ug/mL for Ni, 0.0027 ug/mL for Ti, 0.009 ug/mL for Co, 0.0029 ug/mL for Li and 0.0046 ug/mL for Cr.Response to minor comments:1.We have referred the appropriate references that changes in serum levels of trace elements have been observed in breast cancer patients.Response to comments from Editorial Board:We selected controls who were matched to the patients for age and other known risk factors of breast cancer and excluded women with history of any tumor or breast disease or previous exposure to heavy metals. A potential selection bias may have occurred if there were significant differences between the two groups in the known breast cancer risk factors above. Table 1: Characteristics of the subjectsCharacteristics
Patient group
Control group
P valueAge(years)
44.97±9.54
44.66±9.21
&0.05Body mass index (kg/m2)
24.22±3.14
23.81±2.73
&0.05First-degree relative with breast cancer
&0.05Positive
Menopausal status
&0.05Premenopausal
Postmenopausal
Late age at first full-term pregnancy (&30 years)
&0.05Early menarche (&12 years)
&0.05Late menopause (&55 years)
&0.05No. of full-term pregnancies
2.55±1.56
2.26±1.35
&0.05Oral contraceptive use
Use of hormone replacement therapy
&0.05Alcohol consumption
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
谢谢你，mediocrebeing！我是按照同一类研究的已发文章做的（照葫芦画瓢），病例数比之前的文章多，回复时拿出这些文章行不行？我修改完文章后，是该另投别的杂志，还是该给原来杂志的EIC写信，请求reconsider？谢谢！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
neurojm edited on
以下是这篇文章的abstract，希望能让各位前辈对这篇文章加深了解，指点指点我。谢谢！
The objective of the present study was to analyze serum levels of 14 trace elements in breast cancer patients, and with a progress of the disease.Methods
Serum levels of Zn, Mn, Al, Cd, Fe, Mg, Ca, Pb, Cu, Ni, Ti, Co, Li and Cr of 58 breast cancer patients and 50 normal controls were measured and analyzed. Results
There were significant differences in serum levels of Mn, Al, Cd, Fe, Mg, Cu, Ti, Co, and Li, while no significant differences in serum levels of Zn, Ca , Pb, Ni, and Cr between the two groups. Compared to the control group, the patient group had significantly higher serum levels of Cd, Mg, Cu, Co, and Li, and marginally significantly higher serum Cr levels, while significantly lower serum levels of Mn, Al, Fe, and Ti. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in the serum levels of all the 14 trace elements amongst the patients with stage Ⅰ, stage Ⅱ and stage Ⅲ breast cancer. Conclusions
There may be associations between the changed serum levels of trace elements and breast cancer risk. Changes of serum levels of trace elements may be of potential to have diagnostic and preventive value for breast cancer, although it warrants further investigations on larger sample size and on more other trace elements of interest.
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
谢谢长青藤编辑！我想的就是能够有机会修改，回复审稿人的问题。说argue有些词不达意，不好意思！请您指点指点怎样回复问题2和3，谢谢！问题2说我没加审稿人要求的inclusion of ecological studies，可是在第一次修回我加了We have referred the results of ecological studies to clarify the geographic varaition in breast cancer incidence rates.Within the USA, white female breast cancer incidence rates ranged from 105.0 per 100,000 in Mississippi to 153.0 in the District of Columbia. 是我理解错了？他要的ecological studies到底指的是什么？问题3说审稿人的其它问题没fully revised，笼统得没法回答。第一次修回里reviewer 1的前两个问题，我实在不知怎么fully revise。再次感谢前辈！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
继续求助！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
谢谢长青藤编辑！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
关于丁香园关注今日：8 | 主题：503603
微信扫一扫
扫一扫，下载丁香园 App
即送15丁当
【求助】elsevier 审稿意见Accept with revision(Internal Adjudication) 应该如何修改
页码直达：
这个帖子发布于3年零171天前，其中的信息可能已发生改变或有所发展。
elsevier的杂志，Re-submission后，今天文章状态变为： Accept with revision(Internal Adjudication) ，但是没有给出具体的修改意见。2个review的意见都是accept，section editor的意见是This manuscript is still not acceptable in its present form. I would suggest to the authors that they get help in editing themanuscript's English. But, in addition, I find the discussion quite poorlyorganized, and in need of improvements. The authors physiologic and clinicalconclusion from the results of the study need to be better presented.editor给了一个网址，可以提供有偿的修改服务，我是否需要付费修改，才能增加accept的把握呢？着急啊！我该怎么办呢？
不知道邀请谁？试试他们
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
急需明白人指点一下，这种状态还可能被拒吗？多谢啦！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
綠茶 急需明白人指点一下，这种状态还可能被拒吗？多谢啦！Yes. It is still possible to get rejected if you did not revise well.
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
关于丁香园&感冒才好一些，打开邮箱便看见一封信Decision on
Manuscript，预感不好。
&打开一看，果然是，长长一篇，找了一阵，发现最恨的目标词
&那一刻，眼泪差点飞奔出来，不是因为感冒，而是因为前前后后改了一年的Paper还是这么无情地被拒了。还是强忍住去看三个reviewers的意见，致命的问题是教育年限不同，activity
pm的range太小。第一个reviewer和第三个reviewer还算温和，中间一个reviewer说
I am not clear about what we learn that is new from this study.
There already seems to be ample evidence that
……& 不至于吧！！
仔仔细细又看了一遍reviewer的意见，也想了如何回应和修改的，但还是没有勇气立刻就改，何况最近还有那么多事情，要写两篇实验计划，要去小学收数据，要录入统计数据，还老是感冒，这个年底过得这个郁闷啊。
反省一下，撇开论文不谈，自己失败就失败在不会合理安排时间。总是按照兴趣做事，很少按照最优计划安排利用时间，也是为什么忙一大堆事，却都做不完也做不好，ck强调的Timetable我过了一年还是没有重视，结果可想而知。
情绪是一方面，但该做的事不能停，听了周杰伦的《蜗牛》，感觉好多了~~
想起一年前CK在一次讨论课上对师兄师姐们说过的：
当你的论文被rejected,你可以修改，然后再投同一家或外另一家杂志；&
当你的论文被rejected but advise to contribute
again,这是说，you have hope&
当你的论文被accept with extensive revision,这是说，they are
当你的论文被accept with minor revision,这是说，very possible
to publize&;当你的论文被accept,You won!
该做的是脚踏实地地看看自己论文的局限，等有时间了，继续改，送自己一首歌《隐形的翅膀》&&
People are much braver than they thought.
都在徘徊孤单中坚强
每一次 就算很受伤 也不闪泪光
我知道 我一直有双隐形的翅膀 带我飞 飞过绝望
不去想 他们拥有美丽的太阳
我看见 每天的夕阳 也会有变化
我知道 我一直有双隐形的翅膀 带我飞 给我希望
我终于 看到 所有梦想都开花
追逐的年轻 歌声多嘹亮
我终于 翱翔 用心凝望不害怕
哪里会有风 就飞多远吧
隐形的翅膀 让梦恒久比天长
留一个 愿望 让自己想象
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。关注今日：8 | 主题：503602
微信扫一扫
扫一扫，下载丁香园 App
即送15丁当
【求助】Minor Revision后被Reject!!
页码直达：
这个帖子发布于5年零67天前，其中的信息可能已发生改变或有所发展。
第一次投稿 是 Minor RevisionReviewer #1: Well done study. It adds important data.I would suggest editing the paper to make it shorter. Some of the discussion is redundant.Reviewer #2: This is a well written manuscript tabulating numbers of hair follicles and follicular units, size and cycle in normal scalp from 31 patients. The date is presented clearly, and new findings are reported. Several suggestions:(1) The abstract is too long. The entire last paragraph is unnecessary.(2) The stratification of the age groups is confusing. Group 1 was &before the second decade&, yet included patients under 20. Patients in their teens are technically in their second decade. (3) I do not understand the discussion about the Korean data &. . . patients with alopecia areata were selected from clinically normal occipital scalp . . .&, and why it could not represent normal Asian counts.(4) The difference in the T:V ratio in the Taiwanese may be a function of what level the hairs were counted.(5) Tables 6-9 are redundant.按照审稿者建議 修改后 變 rejectDear MS XXXX:Your manuscript has been reviewed by our editors.I am sorry to say that we will not be able to accept your paper for publication in its present form. I regret having to send you th I can appreciate the time and effort you must have expended on this work.We will consider a new submission if you feel that you are able to answer the reviewers' comments satisfactorily.
If you choose to resubmit, please send your revision via EES as a new submission.
PLEASE INDICATE THE OLD MANUSCRIPT NUMBER IN YOUR COVER LETTER AND AT THE TOP OF THE TITLE PAGE OF YOUR NEW MANUSCRIPT.
If you decide to revise and resubmit as a new submission, please do so within 3 months.
If you decide to revise, please provide a cover letter detailing the changes you have made in response to the reviewers' comments point-by- point and highlight where you have made those changes when you submit your revised manuscript. Without a point-by-point response and the highlighted areas, we will not be able to evaluate your revision.A number of critical issues were raised by our reviewers.
If you believe that you can address these issues, we would be willing to reconsider your manuscript as a new submission.
Please address each issue on a point-by-point basis.Thank you got allowing us to review this manuscript and for your interest in the Journal Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Sincerely,Seth L. Matarasso, MDAssociate EditorBruce H. Thiers, MD EditorJournal of the American Academy of DermatologyEditor's comment- Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, even after revision the priority score assigned to your manuscript was not high enough for publication. We have a very large backlog of already accepted but still unpublished manuscripts, and simply cannot publish all the good material we receive. I believe the revised manuscript is much stronger than the original, and I suggest you consider resubmission to an international dermatology journal. As an alternative, we would reconsider it for JAAD if shortened and resubmitted as a Research Letter (see Information for Authors for format).請問這樣子再resubmit為original機率高嗎??還是大家建議改投別家好了呢?因為我也沒聽說過minor revision后被reject!!
不知道邀请谁？试试他们
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
这种情况很少见，但既然要你重投，那就投吧，并没有彻底拒掉你
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
确实少见楼主的情况，不过可以按照意见改过来重新投试试看，祝好运！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
少见的情况，长见识了！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
哇塞！一切皆有可能啊！
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
就是我只想给你发letter，你看着办。OA不大可能
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
丁香园准中级站友
ishemy1you 就是我只想给你发letter，你看着办。OA不大可能同意！作为皮肤科的领头杂志，JAAD影响因子一路飙升，OA的数量需要控制，质量需要提高，才能得到更高的IF. Research letter的发表后计算IF时不作为分母，但会作为分子，故不会降低IF，被引用后杂志社就赚了，不被引用也不影响其IF。
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
你好，请问jaad中是不是患者知情同意书需要自己手写啊？我没有看到模板啊
微信扫一扫
广告宣传推广
政治敏感、违法虚假信息
恶意灌水、重复发帖
违规侵权、站友争执
附件异常、链接失效
关于丁香园