《英文论文写作及投稿技巧讲座》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英文论文写作及投稿技巧讲座（23页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、英文论文写作及 投稿技巧讲座密安大学 李婴Journal citation reportsSelecting the right journal and picking a manuscript formatWriting the manuscriptReview criteria for research manuscriptsTalking back to reviewers: the gentle art of resubmissionStatistical summary of the Journal Rankings1.400Q J Exp Psychol_B2.194J Cance
2、r Res Clin1.747Int J Psychophysiol5.076Clin Cancer Res3.035Psychophysiology8.302Cancer ResPsychologyOncology2.581J Appl Physiol1.809J Gastrointest Surg3.660AM J Physiol-Gastrl3.691AM J Surg Pathol4.285J Cell Physiolo5.467J Endovasc SurgPhysiologySurgery2.538J Clin Neurophysiol1.794Liver7.407Brain4.7
3、50J Hepatol17.312Behav Brain Sci8.096HepatologyNeurosciencesHepatology0.909Apoptosis3.549AM J Gastroenterol2.788Anti-Cancer Drug Des3.660AM J Physiol-Gastr l6.240Adv Protein Chem13.020GastroenterologyBiochemistry an extensive historical review is not appropriate. Materials and Methods (Experimental
4、Procedures). How the research was conducted and how the hypothesis was tested.Describe techniques, cell/animal models used, and lists of reagents, chemicals, and equipment, as well as the names of manufacturers and suppliers, so that your study can be most easily replicated by others. The statistica
5、l methods that were used to evaluate the data. Specify that the work conformed with national/local ethics committee guidelines. All anaesthetic details, including method of killing, must be included. Methods are described once only and do not appear in the legends to figures and tables.ResultsProvid
6、e the experimental data and results as well as the particular statistical significance of the data. Quantitative observations are often better presented graphically than in tables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), not t tests, should be used for multiple comparisons. Theory and inference must be clearl
7、y distinguished from what was observed, and should not be elaborated upon in this section. DiscussionExplain your interpretation of the data, especially compared with published material cited in the References. How the results, and the interpretation of them agree or contrast with previously publish
8、ed work. Point out the strengths and weaknesses of the methods or results of the study and suggest possible refinements in methods for future study. Practical applications and theoretical implications of the results need to be discussed.State conclusions clearly and summarize the evidences for each
9、conclusion. (References Acknowledgements Tables Figures and legends Supplementary material Abbreviations)COMMENTS TO EDITORS AND TO AUTHORSCONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS FOR EDITORSDear Reviewer A decision of Reject has been rendered on manuscript G-00323-2002 “Differential Mechanism and Site of Action of CC
10、K on the Pancreatic Secretion and Growth in Rats. Please see the reviewers comments below.Referee 1 Comments:Major Comments: 1. It is unclear what this study adds to our knowledge. As the authors mention, it was previously reported that ablation of vagal nerves or atropine treatment did not prevent
11、CCK mediated increases in pancreatic growth (Nylander et al. 1997). Furthermore, direct trophic effects of CCK on pancreatic cells have been reported in vitro (this relevant literature was not cited). Thus, the current study is primarily confirmatory. 2. The authors do not discuss the potential rele
12、vance of this data to humans. The lack of CCKA receptors on human pancreatic acinar cells suggests that this direct trophic mechanism is specific to rodents. Referee 2 Comments: The manuscript describes studies involved three important topics: the mechanisms and site of action of CCK on pancreatic e
13、nzyme secretion, pancreatic growth, and the role of the vagal afferent in the regulation of CCK release. The data presented in this paper demonstrated that CCK stimulates pancreatic enzyme secretion via a capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferent pathway, and CCK exerts pancreatic growth effect on the panc
14、reas directly. However, these observations have been well demonstrated in previous publications. I am puzzled by the data presented in this paper indicating the increase of plasma CCK concentrations in the rats after perivagal capsaicin treatment. The background and the rational of this study have n
15、ot been clearly described. The interpretation of the data seems muddled. The style of this manuscript, particularly in the sections of “Introduction“ and “Discussion“ are very informal. REASONS REVIEWERS REJECT MANUSCRIPTS“Poor argumentation,” that is , failing to make a convincing case.Hypothesis n
16、ot stated or inappropriate.Lack of a conceptual or theoretical framework. Inadequate, incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature. Ignorance of the literature. Poor writing. Text difficult to follow, to understand.Lack of novelty.Misunderstanding or misapplying the data or the literature. Sample too small or biased. Overinterpretation of the results. Underinterpretation of results; ignoring result
