【原创】实战SCI<SCI投稿全过程>
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
shwh(金币+12)：非常有借鉴意义，谢谢分享!
melody(金币+5):3x
whyerect(金币+3)：凑够20：）
实战SCI（原创）
1. 稿件＋cover lettes(资料丢失了)
2. 格式不对，英语不好，修改再投，呵呵。以下是主编来信（其实这样的信一般是编辑写的）
To: *@yahoo,*@sina
From: jam@oxon.blackwellpublishing
Date: 04 Oct 2005
CC: Subject: Journal of Applied Microbiology - JAM-2005-1155
04 Oct 2005
Dear Dr. ＊
Manuscript: JAM-2005-1155
Title: *
Author(s): 1) *2)* 3) *
Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to the Journal of Applied Microbiology. Your manuscript has not been reviewed as I am sorry to have to inform you that, as currently presented, it is not suitable for publication in the journal. One of the main issues relates to the use of English, that the referees feel makes sections of the text ambiguous. You are strongly advised to seek the advice of a natural English speaker. In addition, the manuscript does not comply with the style of the journal and you should access the current 揑nstructions for Authors? within the 揚ublications? section of the SfAM web-site:
uk/. In particular, the Results and Discussion sections must NOT be combined and you should not include a Conclusions section. Legends to figs must be on a
separate page and you should abbeviate journal titles. If you feel able to modify your manuscript taking into account the above comments then the Editors would be willing to
reconsider a revised manuscript. The revised manuscript should be uploaded as prompted on the submission site at: appliedmicrobiology.manuscriptcentral
Yours sincerely
Arthur Gilmour,
Chief Editor, JAM
3. 按照该刊物格式的要求（这一点非常重要，态度决定一切，呵呵），认真修改，但是英语还是那个英语，就那水平，没有法子改。发过去，稿件被审了。以下是主编和审稿人意见。
To: *@yahoo, *@sina
From: jam@oxon.blackwellpublishing
Date: 02 Dec 2005
CC: Subject: Journal of Applied Microbiology - JAM-2005-1303
02 Dec 2005
Dear Dr. *
Manuscript: JAM-2005-1303
Title: *
Author(s): *
Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to Journal of Applied Microbiology. Your manuscript has been reviewed and I am sorry to have to inform you that, as currently presented, it is not suitable for publication in the journal. However, you are encouraged to modify your manuscript taking into account the reviewers’comments, in which case the Editors would be willing to reconsider and I will be pleased to receive a revised manuscript. The revised paper will be reviewed once more and the decision of the Editors is final. If you decide to submit a revised manuscript I should be grateful if you would include with your submission a detailed explan
ation of how you have dealt with the points raised by the referees. This must be entered into the fields entitled Response to Editor and Response to Reviewers which appear during online submission otherwise they will not be available to the handling editor and reviewers respectively.
In addition, to help in assessing the reviewing process, please indicate any changes in the revised manuscript by using the highlighter tool in Word to highlight the changes in yellow. Before resubmitting your manuscript please also ensure that any artwork meets the criteria as outlined in the journal's instructions to authors, given in the weblink below. Please
note that poor quality figures may delay the publication of your paper.
www.blackwellpublishing/authors/digill.asp
The revised manuscript should be uploaded via your corresponding author centre, at: appliedmicrobiology.manuscriptcentral Click on the 'revised manuscript' option and the title of your paper to submit your revised manuscript. Comments on technical aspects of your paper are included below:
Yours sincerely
Arthur Gilmour,
Chief Editor, JAM
EDITOR'S COMMENTS TO AUTHORS
Dear authors,
Upon careful consideration of the comments from both reviewers I believe it is important to address the issues raised about the description of some of your methods and more importantly discussion and hence I recommend a major revision before publication. However, I hope you will find the suggestions relatively striaghtforward to implement. Please make sure that you address all the points raised by both reviewers.
COMMENTS FROM REFEREES: (Comments in attachment form should be accessed from your corresponding author centre)
Reviewer 1 Comments:
1. General Comments：The Introduction clearly describes the background and significance of the w
ork. The Materials and Methods section is short on the details of the work. The Discussion does not adequately describe the work in relation to other research. The manuscript is very readable.
2. Specific comments
a. Major
1) The experimental conditions described on lines 74-81 are incomplete. The concentration and source of tobacco waste used
in the experimental runs, results of which are shown in Table 2, are not reported. Also, the length of the experimental runs should be reported in this section. The only reference to the run time is given on line 170. It is not sufficient to report only the percent nicotine degradation, but the overall rate and amount of nicotine degraded should be determinable. Also, the amount and source of materials should be reported.
2) The authors should discuss the use of optimum amounts and whether these optimum amounts could be used on a large scale. For example, would the cost of Tween 80 and yeast extract be reasonable at approximately 1 g/L?
3) Comparisons should be made with previous work. In particular, rates of nicotine degradation should be compared with previous work. A key reference for this is the
Uchida et al. paper. The journal cited is Science Paper. Is this the correct citation? I could not locate this paper.
4) On line 91 it is stated that runs were made in duplicate. The data presented in Table 2 and the analysis from Table 3 do not show duplicate runs.
b. Minor
1) The pure error term listed in Table 3 appears to be the total corrected error, corrected for the mean, and not the pure error.
Reviewer 2 Comments:
1 General comments: The paper deals with an important applied aspect of nicotine biodegradation by bacterium. Additionally, the use of factorial analysis to predict the best
composition of medium to give the best nicotine degradation rate it is very relevant to this field. In conclusion, the paper is a good piece of work.
2) Specific comments for revision: The paper needs an editing revision in order to improve the final version. Many words are stick; 祃 must be replaced by 礚; in my version 篊 appears as an open square; in pag. 7, l.136, Liu et al. 2003 is missing in the reference list.
4. 我们的答复
Response to Editor and Response to Reviewers
Dear editor,
I delayed the revised manuscript because my son was born last month. Moreover, I supplemented one validation experiment using 30 l Bioreactor. Hence, the results of validation experiment in the original manuscript replaced by new results in the revised manuscript thus may be much useful. Besides, I revised the paper according to editor and reviewer comments. I addressed the issues raised about the description of some my methods and compared our results with other studies. Quality of table and figures also was improved.
Best wishes to you!
Yours sincerely,
Doctor *
COMMENTS FROM REFEREES: (Comments in attachment form should be
accessed from your corresponding author centre)
Reviewer 1 Comments:
1. General Comments
The Introduction clearly describes the background and significance of the work. The Materials and Methods section is short on the details of the work. The Discussion does not adequately describe the work in relation to other research. The manuscript is very readable.
2. Specific comments
a. Major
1) The experimental conditions described on lines 74-81 are incomplete. The concentration and source of tobacco waste used in the experimental runs, results of which are shown in Table 2, are no
t reported. Also, the length of the experimental runs should be reported in this section. The only reference to the run time is given on line 170. It is not sufficient to report only the percent nicotine degradation, but the overall rate and amount of nicotine degraded should be determinable. Also, the amount and source of materials should be reported.
Ø        The experiment conditions were supplemented in revised manuscript. Please see on line 80-91.
Ø        The tobacco waste was collected from Bengbu Cigarette Co. Ltd., Anhui of P.R. China and the content of nicotine is about 1.36 %. Please see on line 82-84.
Ø        The
content of nicotine was about 1.36 % in tobacco waste and 1220 mg/L in tobacco extract.
Ø        The specific biodegradation rates of nicotine were compared with the other nicotine-degrading bactria in application. Please see on line 207-212 and table 4 on line 330.
Ø        The time of experimental runs was 12 h in CCD experiment. Please see on line 87.
Ø        In optimal conditions, the percent nicotine degradation, overall rate and amount of nicotine degraded were determined. Please see on line 181-183. The tobacco waste used in the optimal experiment also was collected from Bengbu Cigarette Co. Ltd, Anhui of P.R. China. Please see on line 82-84.
2) The authors should discuss the use of optimum amounts and whether these optimum amounts could be used on a large scale. For example, would the cost of Tween 80 and yeast extract be reasonable at approximately 1 g/L?
Ø        The economics of biodegradation needs to be analyzed and the costs compared with those of other nicotine degradation methods. In this study, source supplement could improved nicotine degradation and reduced time of nicotine degradation. The results indicated that strain DN2 could be used on a large scale. On the other, source supplement will increase the operating costs. However, yeast extract, glucose and Tween 80 were commercially available and inexpensive. Please see on line 213-220.
3) Comparisons should be made with previous work. In particular, rates of nicotine degradation should be compared with previous work. A key reference for this is the Uchida et al. paper. The journal cited is Science Paper. Is this the correct citation? I could not locate this paper.
Ø        In revised manuscript, we compared our results with previous work. Please see online 208-213 in discussion section.
Ø        Uchida et al. paper is Japanese. I don’t understand Japanese, so I did not understand accurately mean of the paper. I asked a teacher from Japan, conclusion of the paper was “glucose could improve * biodegradation in a glucose-* medium ” and the mount of the increase was not reported in this paper. Please see on line 197-199. I will submit the reference with the revised manuscript.
4) On line 91 it is stated that runs were made in duplicate. The data presented in Table 2 and the analysis from Table 3 do not show duplicate runs.
Ø        The runs were made in duplicated. However all most paper that I seen in literature did not show repeat runs such as table 2. The errors <10%. The errors showed in table 3. Please see table 3 on line 325.
b. Minor
1) The pure error term listed in Table 3 appears to be the total corrected error, corrected for the mean, and not the pure error.
Ø        It was revised in revised manuscript. Please see table 3 on line 325.
Reviewer 2 Comments:
1 General comments: The paper deals with an important applied aspect of nicotine biodegradation by bacterium. Additionally, the use of f
actorial analysis to predict the best composition of medium to give the best nicotine degradation rate it is very relevant to this field. In conclusion, the paper is a good piece of work.
2) Specific comments for revision: The paper needs an editing revision in order to improve the final version. Many words are stick; 祃 must be replaced by 礚; in my version 篊 appears as an open square; in pag. 7, l.136, Liu et al. 2003 is missing in the reference list.
Ø        I read the journal’s instructions and recent papers and revised the paper according to the journal’s criteria. All letters were re-typed, and quality of tables and figures were improved.
Ø        In my email, “祃 must be replaced by 礚” could not be displayed correctly.
Ø        An open square may occur in submitting manuscript. We will submit the revised in world version and PDF version for review.
Ø        The reference, Liu et al. 2003, was added in the revised manuscript. Please see on line 266.
submitting5. 主编回复意见，generally acceptable
To: *@yahoo,*@sina
From: jam@oxon.blackwellpublishing
Date: 17 Jan 2006
CC:
Subject: Journal of Applied Microbiology - JAM-2005-1303.R1
17 Jan 2006
Dear Dr. ＊
Manuscript: JAM-2005-1303.R1
Title: *
Author(s): *
Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to the Journal of Applied Microbiology. Your manuscript has been reviewed and whilst it is generally acceptable, there are some points of a relatively minor nature that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication in the journal. If you decide to submit a revised manuscript, I should be grateful if you would include with your submission a detailed explanation of how you have dealt with the points raised by the referees. This must be entered into the fields entitled Response to Editor and Response to Reviewers which appear during online submission otherwise they will not be available to the handling editor and reviewers respectively. In addition, to help in assessing the reviewing process, please indicate any changes in the revised manuscript by using the highlighter tool in Word to highlight the changes in yellow. An exclusive licence form should accompany the revised manuscript. This can be downloaded from the journal homepage or from the 'Instructions and Forms' link on the submission site at: appliedmicrobiology.manuscriptcentral The completed form can then be faxed to +44(0)1865 471 787.
Before resubmitting your manuscript please ensure that any artwork meets the criteria as outlined by the journal's instructions to authors. Please be aware that poor quality figures may delay the the publi
cation date of your paper. It is the policy of the Journal for authors to pay the full cost for the reproduction of their colour artwork. If there is colour artwork in your manuscript when it is accepted for publication, Blackwell Publishing require you to complete and return a colour work agreeme

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。