该话题已被移动 - dongwp , 2015-07-06 22:42
如果您尚不清楚该话题被移动的原因，请参考论坛规则以及本版公告或者联系本版版主。

发帖
每发1个新帖
可以获得0.5个丁当奖励
回帖

【交流】SCI论文撰写与投稿答疑专栏——蝙蝠侠中队与您携手同行！ [精华]

只看楼主
页码直达：
直达末页

入门站友

3312楼

大侠，我的一篇个案报道，投了一个2左右的杂志，审稿人给拒了，说建议写成个案加文献回顾后再投他们，第二次我改了下又投，但编辑又给返回来了，不是拒搞的那种，说该杂志已经不接受个案报道，要求改成original artical 的形式才能进一步继续审稿，这种情况怎么办啊，有办法把个案写成original artical 的形式吗，还是这个杂志要放弃了，谢谢大侠啊，投稿须知一直没有变化，里面确实没有明确说接收个案，文章类型里面也没有个案这一种，但是我查询pubmed上最新的文章，改杂志还一直有个案在发表。

2015-04-14 09:53

投票
收藏
打赏
引用
分享
- 微信扫一扫
- 新浪微博
- 丁香客
- 复制网址
举报
- 广告宣传推广
- 政治敏感、违法虚假信息
- 恶意灌水、重复发帖
- 违规侵权、站友争执
- 附件异常、链接失效
- 其他

• 丁香热议 05.29 从私立医院跳到公立，我仿佛被关进了笼子失去了自由

楼主

蝙蝠侠05

常驻站友

3313楼

七月微雪
大侠，我的一篇个案报道，投了一个2左右的杂志，审稿人给拒了，说建议写成个案加文献回顾后再投他们，第二次我改了下又投，但编辑又给返回来了，不是拒搞的那种，说该杂志已经不接受个案报道，要求改成original artical 的形式才能进一步继续审稿，这种情况怎么办啊，有办法把个案写成original artical 的形式吗，还是这个杂志要放弃了，谢谢大侠啊，投稿须知一直没有变化，里面确实没有明确说接收个案，文章类型里面也没有个案这一种，但是我查询pubmed上最新的文章，改杂志还一直有个案在发表。

那就是case report and literature review
有些期刊里可能是作为论著的
搜索一下该期刊此类型的文章，仿照他们的格式修改。

2015-04-14 11:14

投票 1
收藏
打赏
引用
分享
- 微信扫一扫
- 新浪微博
- 丁香客
- 复制网址
举报
- 广告宣传推广
- 政治敏感、违法虚假信息
- 恶意灌水、重复发帖
- 违规侵权、站友争执
- 附件异常、链接失效
- 其他

• 「规培真心话」你们的带教老师，对待男女生态度有差别吗？

589690

脊柱外科

丁香园准中级站友

3314楼

蝙蝠侠老师：
您好！这是我第一次做meta，投了Plos ONE，给了大修，但有多处不知如何返修？望您给小弟些指导意见。万分谢谢！望您不吝赐教！
Additional Editor Comments (if provided): 该篇纳入2篇RCT，1篇半RCT，估计悬了，且结果阴性。
The authors performed a stastically rigorous meta-analysis. However, there is concern that the conclusions of the two RCTs included in the meta-analysis at least in part favor ** ** yet in the meta-analysis, no difference was observed. This is curious and suggests that the binary classification of "improvement" vs "no improvement" for the different procedures may not have been dichotimized correctly. 这条意见不知要回吗？The authors should better clarify why the conclusion of both studies is not reflected in the results of the meta-analaysis nor the result figures.这条意见从什么角度回会比较好？ The authors should be much more explicit about their dichotimization procedure and how this compared to the original RCT endpoints, especially since different scales are used.这里不知要二分类变量如何与原RCT endpoints 做对比？还是具体解释下就行？
I'm not as concerned about the different surgical techniques - as that is inherent - and the bigger question is whether one approach is superior to ther other (Regardless of technique).这条意见从什么角度回会比较好？
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
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. Experimentsmust have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Partly
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 here.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: Yes 像这种给yes应该不要回应吧？
5. Review Comments to the Author
Reviewer #1: The authors performed a meta-analysis including only three studies with low level of evidence and found no difference in clinical improvement between the two types of treatments.
The methodology adopted is rigorous and the objective of the study is original.评审意见未提具体问题，要做回应？
Reviewer #2: The methodology is correct but the papers used for this meta-analysis are strongly biased and ultimately incomparable:
Only 2 real RCTs identified, but not the same surgical techniques, not the same scales of preoperative and postoperative analysis ...如何回应比较恰当？
Furthermore, there is a hugebias: starting from 226 papers recorded and only 3 had beens used for the meta-analysis and yet, no raw data has been recovered.
Therefore, despite a rigorous methodology, no valid conclusion is possible.
One has the impression that the authors are trying to hide the lack of quality of the publications selected by a complex and ultimately ineffective methodological nebula. I do think that before conducting a meta-analysis, which requires high level of scientific evidence publications, it is urgent to conduct RCT level I on the therapeutic management of these diseases. 这个审稿人好像意见较大，要对其中的每一句做出回应吗？

2015-04-14 16:49

投票
收藏
打赏
引用
分享
- 微信扫一扫
- 新浪微博
- 丁香客
- 复制网址
举报
- 广告宣传推广
- 政治敏感、违法虚假信息
- 恶意灌水、重复发帖
- 违规侵权、站友争执
- 附件异常、链接失效
- 其他

589690 编辑于 2015-04-14 16:51

• 考研调剂血泪史！失败者的经验也很重要。

chaoqunzhouyun

放疗科

常驻站友

3315楼

请求老师推荐期刊：
题目High expression of FOXO3a cooperates with negative PTEN expression to stratify risk of poor prognosis in colorectal cancer of Chinese people
做的组织芯片，免疫组化，临床病理关系和生存分析
2分左右，不知道行不行。
版面费不要求
审稿时间最好1-2月以内，不能太久。担心发不掉，能及时改投
感谢！

2015-04-14 23:27

投票
收藏
打赏
引用
分享
- 微信扫一扫
- 新浪微博
- 丁香客
- 复制网址
举报
- 广告宣传推广
- 政治敏感、违法虚假信息
- 恶意灌水、重复发帖
- 违规侵权、站友争执
- 附件异常、链接失效
- 其他

• 【话题】碰到不想上手术的规培实习医生，你会怎么做？

论文写作投稿

【交流】SCI论文撰写与投稿答疑专栏——蝙蝠侠中队与您携手同行！ [精华]

提示

丁香园旗下网站

关于丁香园

官方链接

论文写作投稿

分享到：

微信扫一扫

【交流】SCI论文撰写与投稿答疑专栏——蝙蝠侠中队与您携手同行！ [精华]

微信扫一扫

微信扫一扫

微信扫一扫

微信扫一扫

提示

丁香园旗下网站

关于丁香园

官方链接