发信人: puppeteer (减肥中的河马), 信区: Biology
标 题: Re: how fast does your boss in writing paper
发信站: Unknown Space - 未名空间 (Sat Sep 11 13:12:45 2004) WWW-POST

My advice is to write a proposal of experimental revisions on what you think
is reasonable, then discuss with editor and maybe have him forwarding those to
reviewers. If they think there is no way they will be happy with what you
propose to do, forget about it. Otherwise do it.
Remember, you do not have to do all the experiments reviwers propose if you
can argue that it's not indispensible. But also remember, if you agree to do
some substantial additional experiments, the reviwers are usually happier.
Like in my paper, I knew there was a control that was kind of important, but
we decided not to do it when we submitted so reviewers could "ask for it". We
got prepared for it so now we can do it quickly. But you can't overdo it
either, otherwise they will just think your paper is junk. You can leave out a
couple of minor controls but not the major ones.
【 在 windysea (雨瞳~甜心小猪) 的大作中提到: 】
: in my case the editor sounds neutral, while two reviewers a little bit
: positive and the third kind of negative, but all these three suggested
: outrageous amount of experimental revisions as if they actually would not
let
: you survive. For many of them I can provide reasons why they are not
: indispensble or even, are unreasonable, but I am afraid they cann't be
: satisfied.
:
: for example, one experiment (not the key one)is based on the known fact that
B
: is A's exclusive substrate (both are "major" and "famous" proteins), which
is
: proved since the day of discovery. And the reviewer wanted us to prove that
B
: is truly using A not other substrates to cause the effect by including data
: with dominant negetive B (which is not existent yet) or RNAi - in my opinion
: this is just from logical standingpoint, while igoring the known facts, if
we
: don't take advantage of or count on known stuff, then we have to spend most
of
: time proving everything known. (though I totally agree there hides chance of
: discovery that A has other substrates, but in my case I already proved in
: other experiment that B can directly cause the effect)
:
:
: 【 在 puppeteer (减肥中的河马) 的大作中提到: 】
: : First, you call the editor and get his opinion. If he is on your side,
: : congratulations. Then, you have to pick out the "unreasonable" comments of
: the
: : reviewers and try to say somebody really didn't do his job.
: : In my case, I got 1 good review and 2 guys saying not suitable for a
general
: : journal. But one guy only wrote 5 lines. So we said that's totally
: : unreasonable and ask for an additional reviewer, who in the end liked it.
: :
: : If it's rejection based on technical grounds, then you have to address the
: : technical issues.
: : 【 在 windysea (雨瞳~甜心小猪) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : would you please share your stratege how you fight?
: : :
: : : 【 在 puppeteer (减肥中的河马) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : : Welcome to the field. It's quite normal in biology ya. :) I had to
: really
: : : : fight (thankfully my boss helped me) for my first paper to get into
: nature
: : : : neuroscience. But I learned how to fight in the process. Now I think
: it's
: : an
: : : : invaluable lesson, better learned earlier on than later.
: : : :
: : : : 【 在 windysea (雨瞳~甜心小猪) 的大作中提到: 】
: : : : : that is not the issue of writing.
: : : : : someone in my lab submitted to NCB in 2002,
: : : : : went through tremendous argument with editors and revisions,
: : : : : during which she got partially scooped by JBC papers and so she had
to
: : do
: : : : : something more to improve,

--
大肚能容，容天下难容之事；
开口便笑，笑世间可笑之人。
※ 来源:．Unknown Space - 未名空间 mitbbs.com．[FROM: 143.48.]