《英文论文写作及投稿技巧讲座.ppt》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.ppt（23页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、英文论文写作及 投稿技巧讲座 密安大学 李婴 Journal citation reports Selecting the right journal and picking a manuscript format Writing the manuscript Review criteria for research manuscripts Talking back to reviewers: the gentle art of resubmission Statistical summary of the Journal Rankings 1.400Q J Exp Psychol_B2.19
2、4J Cancer Res Clin 1.747Int J Psychophysiol5.076Clin Cancer Res 3.035Psychophysiology8.302Cancer Res PsychologyOncology 2.581J Appl Physiol1.809J Gastrointest Surg 3.660AM J Physiol-Gastrl3.691AM J Surg Pathol 4.285J Cell Physiolo5.467J Endovasc Surg PhysiologySurgery 2.538J Clin Neurophysiol1.794Li
3、ver 7.407Brain4.750J Hepatol 17.312Behav Brain Sci8.096Hepatology NeurosciencesHepatology 0.909Apoptosis3.549AM J Gastroenterol 2.788Anti-Cancer Drug Des3.660AM J Physiol-Gastr l 6.240Adv Protein Chem13.020Gastroenterology Biochemistry an extensive historical review is not appropriate. Materials and
4、 Methods (Experimental 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 b
5、y others. The statistical 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
6、and tables. Results Provide 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 an
7、d inference must be clearly distinguished from what was observed, and should not be elaborated upon in this section. Discussion Explain your interpretation of the data, especially compared with published material cited in the References. How the results, and the interpretation of them agree or contr
8、ast with previously published 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 summa
9、rize the evidences for each conclusion. (References Acknowledgements Tables Figures and legends Supplementary material Abbreviations) COMMENTS TO EDITORS AND TO AUTHORS CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS FOR EDITORS Dear Reviewer A decision of Reject has been rendered on manuscript G-00323-2002 “Differential Mec
10、hanism and Site of Action of CCK 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 atr
11、opine treatment did not prevent 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 d
12、o not discuss the potential relevance 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
13、of action of CCK on pancreatic enzyme 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 panc
14、reatic growth effect on the pancreas 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 t
15、he rational of this study have not 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 ma
16、ke a convincing case. Hypothesis not 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
17、or misapplying the data or the literature. Sample too small or biased. Overinterpretation of the results. Underinterpretation of results; ignoring results. Key points, main results dont stand out. Defective tables or figures. Incomplete, insufficient information in abstract. Title not representative
18、 of the study. . On equal scientific merit, a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted. Difficult to read, to follow and to understand Too long Wrong or inaccurate terms Information in the wrong section, poor organization Unedited, hasty writing, typographical errors Grammatical
19、 errors Inappropriate language Abbreviations not spelled out REASONS REVIEWERS ACCEPT MANUSCRIPTS Important, timely, relevant, critical, prevalent problem Well-written manuscript (clear, straightforward, easy to follow, logical), Clear rationale, Clear hypotheses Thoughtful, focused, up-to-date revi
20、ew of the literature Well-designed study (appropriate, rigorous, comprehensive , novel mix of designs) Sample size sufficiently large. Novel, unique approach to data analysis. Integration of multiple statistical methods Practical, useful implications Interpretation took into account the limitations
21、of the study Problem well stated, alternative explanations presented, reflects scientific honesty Talking back to reviewers: the gentle art of resubmission Do not submit if you do not intend to resubmit. I never expect to be funded on the first submission of a grant. Even accomplished researchers do
22、 not get their work published on the first submission. Do they make mistakes? Do they miss important points? Do they have their own ego problems? But you are much better off assuming they are sincerely interested in helping you. When you talk back to them, do it gently. Make a list of EVERY point th
23、at the reviewers made and categorize them into those that are easily changed, those that will demand a major rethinking, those requiring major additional work, and those you disagree with. When you are ready, write an explanation of how you addressed EVERY point that the reviewers raised. For resubm
24、ission to the same journals, this explanation should be in your letter to the editor. For those points you disagree with, give your rationale for not following the reviewers advice. If you have performed additional pilot work, be sure to include this. Reviewers like to know that you are pursuing your research and not just sitting on your hands waiting for funding. Finally, include in your response a note of gratitude for the reviewers ideas. Try to make this sincere.