【正文】 處理確實(shí)無效 ? 另一種情況是處理有效，可能是由于效果較小，或試驗(yàn)規(guī)模過小，或因試驗(yàn)誤差過大而使其差異未達(dá)到顯著標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，即犯了 II者錯(cuò)誤（將有效錯(cuò)誤判為無效） ? 這在實(shí)際應(yīng)用中非常重要，當(dāng)?shù)玫讲町惒伙@著的結(jié)論時(shí)，必須結(jié)合有關(guān)技術(shù)資料做出判斷。若二者一致，說明處理確實(shí)無效，若二者矛盾，則可能犯了 II類錯(cuò)誤，必要時(shí)可擴(kuò)大規(guī)模重新試驗(yàn)。 Surviving the review process: an editor’ s perspective James L. Sartin Editor, Domestic Animal Endocrinology First Consideration: Should you write a paper? ? Do you have a novel and innovative hypothesis? ? Does your data provide new information to the scientific literature? ? Is your paper descriptive or mechanistic? ? Is your experimental design adequate? ? Are your statistics appropriate? ? Are your conclusions consistent with your data and starting hypothesis? Choosing a Journal ? What is the scope of your paper? ? Is the subject matter appropriate to the journal? ? Then follow the instructions to authors for this journal very closely. Choose a title ? A Role for AGRP in Appetite Regulation in a Species with Continuous Nutrient Delivery. ? The effect of AGRP on feed intake in sheep. ? Informative but attract attention Selecting authors ? Did they contribute to the conduction of the research project? ? Did they contribute to the development of the hypothesis and intellectual aspects of the project? ? Did they have a special role such as statistical analysis or a key method? ? It takes only 12 ATP to add a name, but much more if you leave off a name and insult a coworker. Abstract ? The abstract should provide the hypothesis, details of the methods and results and a short conclusion. ? It should adequately describe what you have done. Introduction ? Logical series of paragraphs to convince the readers that your paper has a solid scientific basis. ? Frame your hypothesis. ? This section is where you sell your idea. If reviewers don’t buy the argument for the project you have lost the battle to publish. Materials and Methods ? Detailed statement of what you did. ? Remember that others must be able to follow your descriptions and repeat your study. Results ? Present data in an objective manner. ? Choose the format (tables, figures or micrographs) that best illustrates your for big data sets. ? Use adequate figure legends so the figures can be understood alone (may differ with different journals). ? Identify important trends. ? Do not interpret your data. That is a discussion. Discussion ? Tell your reader what your data mean. ? You should indicate how your data answers the hypothesis—from Introduction. ? You should talk about how your data relates to the scientific literature. ? How has your data advanced scientific knowledge. ? Avoid too much speculation. ? A concise summary or conclusion in useful. References ? Your references should cite relevant articles in the field. ? Do not use more than needed – check a current journal to suggest a number. ? Check the journal style. ? Make sure the information you cite is accurate. ? Use recent references. Submitting your manuscript Authors ? Cover letter ? Make sure all authors have read and approved the papers submission. ? Some journals require that all authors sign a form. Suggest reviewers ? Many journals offer the author the chance to suggest reviewers (provide plete contact information including phone, FAX and ). ? Most journals will allow authors to specify reviewers that they do not want to see their paper. ? Some editors look at your references list or search PubMed using your keywords for reviewer names. Common reviewer plaints ? Paper doesn’t add anything new to the scientific literature. ? This paper is fine but is just descriptive. ? For some journals—this has already been done in the rat. ? Results don’t prove the stated hypothesis. ? Did not follow instructions to authors. ? Did not follow animal welfare regulations or concerns. ? No hypothesis ? Figure legends do not provide sufficient information ? Statistics are not appropriate for the experimental design. ? Methods are not adequate. ? Poor quality illustrations. ? Disanized progression of the paper. Primary problem for Chinese authors? ? Chenglish. ? The paper cannot be evaluated due to improper English. Reviewers may refuse to evaluate paper. ? A good paper scientifically is rejected only on the basis of language. ? International Science editing ? Asian Science Editing Responding to the reviewers ? Do not respond antagonistically. ? Carefully consider and respond pletely to all reviewer ments. ? Identify by line numbers and page numbers where all changes have been made in the manuscript. ? Do not send a paper back with no changes. ? Failure to follow a reviewers advice can damage your chance of publishing. Don’t make them angry. Rejection ? Most choose another journal and try again. A rejection may only mean the reviewers didn’t like your paper or you chose a wrong journal. ? Endocrinology only accepts the top 25% of papers. ? Lower scientific impact journals may publish the paper. ? If you feel your paper was rejected unfairly: contact the editor and explain the situation. If the editor agrees, you may be given a second review by another set of reviewers. “ Cover letter” amp。 “ How to submit the manuscript” How to prepare the “ Cover Letter” ? ? Function of the cover letter ? Tips for writing the cover letter ? Example and practice ? Where amp。 How to submit the manuscript The function of the “ Abstract” ? the first contact to readers Readers A Good Abstract The Whole Paper A Poor Abstract X The Whole Paper A good abstract delivers the paper’s key points “Concisely” and “Precisely”. The function of the “ Cover Letter” The first c