论文信誉排行网 论文信誉排行网 设为首页
联系我们
收藏本站
 官方首页
 投稿指南
 写作指导
 职称评审
 文献检索
 期刊科普知识
 非法期刊
 学术不端
期刊分类解释 期刊刊号的解释 医学期刊分类表 核心期刊 期刊查询 (2014-2015)CSSCI来源期刊目录 2008医学核心期刊 政策法规
CSSCI CSCD SSCI 《工程索引》(EI) SCI(科学引文索引) 参考文献格式国家标准 2014中文核心期刊目录 论文信誉排行
 当前位置:首页 > 投稿指南 > 浏览正文
【转摘】见过的最无语的审稿意见
作者: 佚名     来源: 本站原创     时间:2014年03月30

Tags:论文信誉排行网
 Comments to the Author


1. 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 been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.


Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No


2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?


Reviewer #3: No

 


Please explain (optional).

Reviewer #3: It was not sufficiently documented how the analyses were performed, and what their precise meaning is.

 


3. Does the manuscript adhere to standards in this field for data availability?

Authors must follow field-specific standards for data deposition in publicly available resources and should include accession numbers in the manuscript when relevant. The manuscript should explain what steps have been taken to make data available, particularly in cases where the data cannot be publicly deposited.


Reviewer #3: No

 


4. 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 typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors below.


Reviewer #3: No



Please explain (optional).


Reviewer #3: The manuscript contains an unacceptable large number of grammatical errors and is therefore difficult to follow.



这篇文章最后被接受了。。

 

免责申明:网友评论不代表本站立场! 客服EMAIL:lunwenpaihang@126.com