英文论文写作及投稿技巧讲座.pdf

2008 8 18 1 英英文文论论文文写写作作及及 投投稿稿技技巧巧讲讲座座 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 194J Cancer Res Clin 1 747Int J Psychophysiol5 076Clin Cancer Res 3 035Psychophysiology8 302Cancer Res PsychologyOncology 2 581JAppl 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 794Liver 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 Methods Experimental Procedures How the researchwas conducted and how the hypothesis was tested Describetechniques cell animal models used and lists of reagents chemicals and equipment as well as the names of manufacturersand suppliers so that your study can be most easily replicated byothers The statisticalmethods that were used to evaluate the data Specify that the work conformed with national local ethics committee guidelines All anaestheticdetails includingmethod of killing must be included Methodsare described onceonly and do not appearin the legends to figures 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 and 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 contrast 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 summarize the evidences for each conclusion References Acknowledgements Tables Figures and legends Supplementary material Abbreviations COMMENTSTO EDITORS AND TO AUTHORSCONFIDENTIALCOMMENTSFOR EDITORS 2008 8 18 4 Dear Reviewer A decision of Reject has been rendered on manuscript G 00323 2002 Differential Mechanism and Site of Action of CCK on the Pancreatic Secretion and Growth in Rats Please see the reviewer s 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 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 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 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 pancreatic 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 the 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 make a convincingcase Hypothesis not stated or inappropriate Lack of a conceptualor theoretical framework Inadequate incomplete inaccurate or outdated review of the literature Ignoranceof the literature Poor writing Text difficult to follow to understand Lack of novelty Misunderstandingor misapplying the data or the literature Sample too small or biased Overinterpretationof the results Underinterpretationof results ignoringresults Key points main results don t stand out Defective tables or figures Incomplete insufficientinformation in abstract Title not representativeof 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 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 review 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 of the study Problem well stated alternative explanations presented reflects scientific honesty Talking back to reviewers the gentle art of resubmission Do not submitif you do not intend to resubmit I never expect to be funded on the first submission of a grant Even accomplished researchers do 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 that the reviewers made and categor