To: ，和上次投food chemistry一审审稿意见比较，这下有事干了。 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=337122do=blogid=470719 CC: Subject: Decision on JFS-2011-0960 Body: : Experts in the field have carefully reviewed your manuscript entitled "Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Cichorium Intybus Root Extract Using Orthogonal Matrix Design,"JFS-2011-0960 and, although they found merit in your study, they have raised a number of serious concerns that preclude acceptance in its present form. To bring your manuscript to a state of acceptability you must respond to each of the reviewer's comments and either alter your manuscript as requested or state why you consider the suggestion inappropriate. Please be aware that your response and revisions do NOT guarantee eventual acceptance of your manuscript. Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviews that will help the editor(s) gauge the changes made in the revised manuscript. To revise your manuscript, log on to ScholarOne Manuscripts at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfs and enter the "Author Center," where you will find your manuscript title, followed by R1, under "Manuscripts with decisions". To view the reviewers' comments, click on the "View Comments and Respond to Reviewers" button. In addition, you should receive these comments in this e-mail; however, to provide responses to the reviewers' comments, you must access "View Comments and Respond to Referees," as the space allotted for you to provide responses is in that screen. You will NOT be able to make your revisions directly by using the originally submitted ScholarOne Manuscripts version of your manuscript. Instead, you should revise your manuscript using a word processor and then resubmit the revised version, ensuring that it is marked R1. Use a red font instead of a black one to indicate the revised portions of your manuscript. Once the revised version is ready, log on to ScholarOne Manuscripts (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfs ), enter the Author Center, and click on the title of the manuscript being revised. This action will take you into the Draft Center, where you can resubmit your manuscript in the same fashion as the original version. If needed, follow the instructions provided by the Draft Center. Be sure you upload all files as "for review", because any files marked "not for review" will not be accessible to reviewers. Unless we hear from you about this paper within 6 weeks (45 days), we will presume you have WITHDRAWN the manuscript from consideration by the Journal of Food Science. Sincerely, Scientific Editor Journal of Food Science Editor's Comments to Author: Comments to the Author: (There are no comments.) Reviewers' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author I have completed the revision of the manuscript "Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Cichorium Intybus Root Extract Using Orthogonal Matrix Design. " This manuscript presents a very interesting research idea about the serach of new antimicrobial and antioxidant sources. The experiment seems well performed, however, several structural details like a very extensive introduction, no relevant discussion and lack of clarity to present results are noticed. In this context, I suggest major changes before acceptances of this manuscript for publication. Please see the additional comments to make my critic more constructive. Specific comments Abstract L26, describe what represents the IC50, half inhibition of what? DPPH? Include a conclusive sentence at the end of this section Introduction Check the reference style of the JFS, in the entire text, et al. is not permitted The information of this section is relevant, however, try to be more specific and reduce the extension of this section. You can avoid the summarized description of the experimental analysis at the end of this section. L117, a period is missing: preservative, The, must… must read …preservative. The…? MM L127, include the considerations made to identify the plan L133, describe every factor and arrangement of the treatments of your experiments, this will be very helpful to improve clarity of your results L142, describe what solvents for what times, this will be clarified if you amend the suggestion for L133. L143, the symbol units for temperature values seems de-configured, check them in the entire manuscript L208, include the units for IC50 RD Results seems well described, however, the discussion must be improved, consider to discuss your results with other works related to the extraction of TPC and antibacterial, antioxidant activities of your studied plant or other, but highlighting the effect of your factors, Solvent, temperature, ultrasonic power, what has been found in other systems about this factors effect on the recovery of TPC as antimicrobial or antioxidant agents, respectively. L252-257, the mechanisms of DPPH inactivation can be omitted from this section L270, this correlation value is very low compared to previous reports, please try to discuss about it Tables and figures Try to improve the clarity of your results; with the size of figure 1 was hard to easily understand your data, Describe better the factors in table 2, in accordance to table 1 using the same nomenclature in both tables. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author Before accepting this research work, should be taken into account: 1. It is necessary to review all the paper. Different temperatures were used in the extraction with different solvents, is this variable??, However is not considered as such. This is not properly explained in the text. 2. Also, the conclusions need to be revised, the authors mentioned optimal combinations of treatments for phenolic, antioxidants and antimicrobials activities, and they do not take into account that the extraction temperature was a variable. 3. On the other hand, it follows that the authors believe that phenolic compounds are responsible for the antimicrobial activity there is no real evidence in research work that demonstrates this. It is necessary to determine the purity of the extracts, a preliminary identification of the most important components of the extracts used should be performed. 4. The number of microorganisms considered in this study is not sufficient ========================================= This letter was generated automatically by ScholarOne Manuscripts http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfs (d2) Date Sent: 05-Nov-2011
标签: 大修
