Molecular Systems Biology Peer Review Process File Rnai Screening Reveals a Large Signaling Network Controlling the Golgi Apparatus in Human Cells Transaction Report
Molecular Systems Biology Peer Review Process File Rnai Screening Reveals a Large Signaling Network Controlling the Golgi Apparatus in Human Cells Transaction Report
复制标题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
--
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Joanne Chia;Germaine Goh;V. Racine;S. Ng;Pankaj Kumar;F. Bard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joanne Chia;Germaine Goh;V. Racine;S. Ng;Pankaj Kumar;F. Bard
(Note注：除了更正可能引起歧义的排印或拼写错误外，信函和报告均未经编辑。信件和裁判报告的原始格式可能不会反映在本汇编中。再次感谢您将您的工作提交给分子系统生物学。我们现在已经收到了同意评估你的手稿的三位审稿人中的两位的回复，我们决定现在做出决定，以避免进一步的拖延。正如您将从下面的报告中看到的那样，推荐人发现您的研究主题具有潜在的兴趣。然而，这些问题对你的工作提出了重大关切，恐怕这使它无法以目前的形式发表。虽然两位评审员都对这项工作的目标持肯定态度，但他们都认为需要更多的工作来支持这些发现，并更详细地分析高内容数据。特别是，第一位评审员认为，一些最新的生物学结论值得额外的实验研究和支持（特别参见第1点和第6点），第二位评审员对图像分析和基于SVM的表型分类有重要的技术关注。此外，分子系统生物学通常要求作者以最合理的方式发布高内容的数据。此外，数据发布似乎对上一位评论者提出的问题有些重要性-未来的研究人员可能希望使用其他特征集或尝试其他方法来分配表型，并可能从这个丰富的数据集中发现更多的见解。我要求您在此修订版中至少提供单个单元格级别的原始数字数据，并且了解底层图像数据的大小将非常有用。如果你觉得你能令人满意地处理这些要点和审稿人列出的要点，你可能希望提交一份修改后的手稿。请附上一封信，详细说明你是如何处理推荐人提出的每一点的。修改后的手稿将再次接受审查，你可能明白，我们不能给你任何保证
(Note: With the exception of the correction of typographical or spelling errors that could be a source of ambiguity, letters and reports are not edited. The original formatting of letters and referee reports may not be reflected in this compilation.) Thank you again for submitting your work to Molecular Systems Biology. We have now heard back from two of the three referees who agreed to evaluate your manuscript, and we have decided to render a decision now to avoid further delay. As you will see from the reports below, the referees find the topic of your study of potential interest. They raise, however, substantial concerns on your work, which, I am afraid to say, preclude its publication in its present form. While both reviewers had positive words for the goals of this work, they each felt that additional work would be needed to support these findings and to analyze the high-content data in more detail. In particular, the first reviewer feels that some of the most novel biological conclusions deserve additional experimental investigation and support (see particularly, points #1 and #6), and the second reviewer has important technical concerns regarding image analysis and SVM based phenotypic classification. In addition, Molecular Systems Biology generally asks authors to release high-content data in the most unprocessed manner reasonable. Moreover, it does seem that data release is somewhat material to the concerns raised by the last reviewer-future researchers are may want to use other feature sets or try other methods for assigned phenotypes, and could potentially uncover further insights from this rich dataset. I would ask that you provide the raw numeric data at least at the single cell level with this revision, and it would be useful to know the size of the underlying image data. If you feel you can satisfactorily deal with these points and those listed by the referees, you may wish to submit a revised version of your manuscript. Please attach a covering letter giving details of the way in which you have handled each of the points raised by the referees. A revised manuscript will be once again subject to review and you probably understand that we can give you no guarantee