英文論文寫作及投稿技巧講座(參考版)
2025-05-06 01:37本頁面
【正文】 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 reviewers39。s ments 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 capsaicinsensitive 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 convincing case. ? Hypothesis not stated or inappropriate. Lack of a conceptual or theoretical framework. ? Inadequate, inplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature. Ignorance of the literature. ? Poor writing. Text difficult to follow, to understand. ? Lack of novelty. ? Misunderstanding or misapplying the data or the literature. Sample too small or biased. Overinterpretation of the results. Underinterpretation of res
畢業(yè)設(shè)計相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1