英文審稿意見

1、在比較高級(jí)別的會(huì)議、期刊等，評(píng)審系統(tǒng)中包括給編輯的和給作者的評(píng)審意見。本文就這兩部分評(píng)審以及進(jìn)行匯總第一部分：給作者的審稿意見1、目標(biāo)和結(jié)果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of t

2、he study are clear to the reader.2、未解釋研究方法或解釋不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、對(duì)于研究設(shè)計(jì)的rationale: Also, there are few explanations

3、of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸張地陳述結(jié)論/夸大成果/不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、對(duì)hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。6、對(duì)某個(gè)概念或工具使用的rationale/定義概念： W

4、hat was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、對(duì)研究問題的定義： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem8、如何凸現(xiàn)原創(chuàng)性以及如何充分地寫literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、對(duì)claim,如AB的證明，verification: There

5、 is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)度問題： MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重視程度）： In addition, the list of references is not in our style.

6、It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with Instructions for Authors which shows examples. Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given un

7、der the Instructions and Forms button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、語(yǔ)言問題（出現(xiàn)最多的問題）：有關(guān)語(yǔ)言的審稿人意見： It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structur

8、e so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sen

9、tences. As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-verse

10、d in English or whose native language is English. Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ? the quality of English needs improving. 來自編輯的鼓勵(lì)：Encouragement from reviewers: I would be very glad to re-review the paper i

11、n greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting. There is continued interest in your manuscript titled which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials. The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.

12、 The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your

13、effort compares with state-of-the-art? The experiment is the major problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimen

14、tal result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this result? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement? the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words. it is good concept, but need to polish

15、layout, language. The authors did a good job in motivating the problem studied in the introduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors

16、 propose. Apparently， Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humble opinion如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .according to review comments.如果是接受，你可以用We are very pleased to inform you that your paper xxxxx has been accepted by journal name. Please prepare your

17、 paper by journal template.At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece ofwork, reporting on . Fine, good quality, but all this has been done and published, and nearly become a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, there is insufficient novelty or significance to meet publication

18、criteria. Also, I did not see any expermental evidence how the * is related with *, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.建議去小木蟲問問，那里有一些資源。the journals copy editors should not have to fix the m

19、any remaining errors. I sympathize that Chinese languages do not have an equivalent of English articles a, an, the and dont seem to grasp the material meaning of those words. The authors English expert decided to insert the word the in front of most mentions of tip-tilt system. This implies that the

20、re is only one system and the authors are using it exclusively. There are dozns of other misuses. Pages 2,3, 8,9,10,11, and 12 are littered with them. The paper is to difficult to read in its present form.感想：一篇好的論文，從內(nèi)容到形式都需要精雕細(xì)琢。附1：中譯審稿意見審稿意見1(1) 英文表達(dá)太差，盡管意思大致能表達(dá)清楚，但文法錯(cuò)誤太多。(2) 文獻(xiàn)綜述較差，觀點(diǎn)或論斷應(yīng)有文獻(xiàn)支持。(3)

21、 論文讀起來像是XXX的廣告，不知道作者與XXX是否沒有關(guān)聯(lián)。(4) 該模式的創(chuàng)新性并非如作者所述，目前有許多XX采取此模式（如美國(guó)地球物理學(xué)會(huì)），作者應(yīng)詳加調(diào)查并分析XXX運(yùn)作模式的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。(5) 該模式也不是作者所說的那樣成功(審稿人結(jié)合論文中的數(shù)據(jù)具體分析)審稿意見2(1) 缺少直接相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)引用(如)。(2) 寫作質(zhì)量達(dá)不到美國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)期刊的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。審稿意見3(1) 作者應(yīng)著重指出指出本人的貢獻(xiàn)。(2) 缺少支持作者發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法學(xué)分析。(3) 需要采用表格和圖件形式展示(數(shù)據(jù))材料。附2：英文審稿意見(略有刪節(jié))Reviewer: 1There are many things wrong wi

22、th this paper.The English is very bad. Although the meaning is by and large clear, not too many sentences are correct.The literature review is poor. The paper is riddled with assertions and claims that should be supported by references.The paper reads as an advertisement for XXX. It is not clear tha

23、t the author is independent of XXX.The AA model of XXX is not as innovative as the author claims. There are now many XX that follow this model (American Geophysical Union, for example), and the author should survey these model to see which one first introduced the elements of the XXX model.The model

24、 is also not as successful as the author claims. Overall, the presentation and the contents of the paper can only mean that I reject that the paper be rejected.Reviewer: 2The are two major problems with this paper:(1) It is missing the context of (and citations to) what is now know as the two-sided

25、market literature including that directly related to (e.g. Braunstein, JASIS 1977; Economides & Katsanakas, Mgt. Sci., 2006; McCabe & Snyder, B.E. J Econ Analysis, 2007).(2) The writing quality is not up to the standard of a US scholarly journal.Reviewer: 31. The author should accentuate his contrib

26、utions in this manuscript.2. It lacks analytical methodologies to support authors discoveries.3. Description style material like this manuscript requires structured tables & figures for better presentations.Ms. Ref. No.: *Title: * Materials Science and Engineering Dear Dr. *,Reviewers have now comme

27、nted on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review

28、 on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits:1)the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2)some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthes

29、is of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ; Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal.英文論文寫作、投稿詳解(整理各大學(xué)術(shù)論壇相關(guān)帖子，轉(zhuǎn)帖) 目前科技論文作者向國(guó)際英文科技期刊

30、投稿的方式有三種。一是傳統(tǒng)的郵寄形式，即通過國(guó)際快件將論文的原稿郵寄給刊物的主編或編輯部。這種形式曾經(jīng)是投稿的近乎唯一的方式，持續(xù)了漫長(zhǎng)的歲月，可現(xiàn)在采用這種方式接受來稿的刊物越來越少了。二是用電子郵件的方式投稿，即作者將原稿的電子文件發(fā)至主編或編輯部的電子信箱。這種投稿方式顯然比郵寄快得多，但與郵寄一樣，稿件也有丟失的時(shí)候。目前采用這種納稿方式的期刊還很多，但有很大一部分期刊己經(jīng)在此基礎(chǔ)上，又進(jìn)了一步，發(fā)展到第三種也是目前最新的一種投稿方式，即網(wǎng)上投稿 (ON-LINE SUBMISSION)。這種方式速度快，而且稿件不會(huì)丟失。一旦作者在網(wǎng)上登記注冊(cè)投稿，每個(gè)主要步驟都有記錄，很受科技期刊作

31、者的歡迎。本文將就網(wǎng)上投稿過程及作者應(yīng)該注意的地方予以詳細(xì)的介紹，供對(duì)此感興趣的中國(guó)作者參考。 網(wǎng)上投稿的關(guān)鍵是要做好充分的準(zhǔn)備工作。首先，作者對(duì)所要投稿的國(guó)際英文刊物的投稿需知(GUIDE FOR AUTHORS)要了解清楚，并且按照要求準(zhǔn)備好原稿的所有文件。一般科技論文分為回顧性文章(REVIEW ARTICLE)，普通論文(REGULAR/RESEARCH ARTICLE)，快訊(SHORT COMMUNICATIONS)等。不同的文章類型，對(duì)原稿的格式要求也有所變化。單就普通論文而言，文章從頭到尾的基本格式是：論文的開篇部分，包括文章標(biāo)題(TITLE)，作者姓名(AUTHORS NAM

32、E)(注明通訊作者/CORRESPONDING AUTHOR)，作者單位地址(AFFILIATION)，論文摘要(ABSTRACT)，關(guān)鍵詞(KEYWORDS)等；論文的正文部分，包括介紹/引言(INTRODUCTION)，實(shí)驗(yàn)方法(METHOD)，實(shí)驗(yàn)材料(MATERIAL)，結(jié)果與分析(RESULTS AND ANALYSIS)，討論（DISCUSSION）, 結(jié)論（CONCLUSION）等；需說明的是不同的學(xué)科，正文的內(nèi)容和形式會(huì)有所增減，圖表、公式的數(shù)量也會(huì)有所不同。正文后的結(jié)尾部分有的文章附加致謝辭(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)，有的則沒有，但參考文獻(xiàn)(REFERENCE)則是必

33、須的。有的文章還帶有附錄(APPENDIX)，如全部的實(shí)驗(yàn)原始數(shù)據(jù)、計(jì)算機(jī)軟件程序等?，F(xiàn)在有的刊物可以在網(wǎng)上發(fā)表的文章中附帶電子視聽文件(E-COMPONENTS)。如短錄像片(VIDEO CLIP)，動(dòng)畫片(SHORT CARTOON)等。作者要根據(jù)自身的情況，選擇文章應(yīng)該包含的內(nèi)容，一旦確定，所有的內(nèi)容都要在網(wǎng)上投稿前準(zhǔn)備好。此外，不但原稿的內(nèi)容和格式要符合刊物的要術(shù)，而且在字?jǐn)?shù)、頁(yè)數(shù)、格式、文件儲(chǔ)存形式等方面，均要與投稿刊物的要求一致。否則，文章在初選階段會(huì)很快落選。其次，是作者對(duì)投稿刊物網(wǎng)上投稿系統(tǒng)的熟悉和學(xué)習(xí)。如果可能，最好請(qǐng)有這方面經(jīng)驗(yàn)的作者上一課，可以節(jié)省時(shí)間和事半功倍。如果找不

34、到合適的老師，作者自己要耐心地自學(xué)。從刊物的網(wǎng)頁(yè)入手，仔細(xì)閱讀網(wǎng)上的投稿需知、跟蹤鏈接或屏幕啟示，把每個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)搞明白弄清楚。 在網(wǎng)上投稿，頭一步是在網(wǎng)頁(yè)上注冊(cè)，也叫作者登記。實(shí)際上與網(wǎng)上購(gòu)物注冊(cè)沒太大區(qū)別，關(guān)鍵是要把自己的姓名、單位、聯(lián)系地址，包括電話、傳真和電子郵箱等登記準(zhǔn)確無(wú)誤。二是按部就班地輸入文章的各個(gè)主要部分。如題目、作者、摘要、關(guān)鍵詞、正文、圖表等。在輸入每個(gè)部分的時(shí)候，一是要通讀該部分的有關(guān)要求，再次確認(rèn)自已輸入的文件是否符合要求。這聽起來并不難，但實(shí)際上作者在這方面的疏忽卻很多。比如按要求，原稿不能超過20頁(yè)，可有的原稿長(zhǎng)達(dá)40多頁(yè)，甚至更長(zhǎng)。有的文章作者完全忽略了刊物對(duì)關(guān)鍵詞的

35、要求，隨心所欲。二是確認(rèn)每個(gè)部分輸入的完整性。有些作者在輸入文件時(shí)過于匆忙，十個(gè)圖只輸入一半，這樣的稿件即使到了編輯部也不能送審，只能返回作者補(bǔ)漏。如果審校員一時(shí)疏忽或主編沒有查覺，將有缺欠的文章發(fā)出送審，則審稿人因?yàn)槿眻D，不能正常審閱文章。這樣造成的麻煩所耽誤的時(shí)間會(huì)更多。三是輸入文件完畢后，也就是所有的部分成功地輸入后，不要忘了點(diǎn)擊投稿發(fā)送鍵。否則，稿件只會(huì)存儲(chǔ)在作者自已的文件夾中，而不是發(fā)到編輯部。目前，許多科技期刊網(wǎng)上投稿，需把文件由一種存儲(chǔ)形式轉(zhuǎn)換到另一種存儲(chǔ)形式，比如DOC文件變成PDF文件。在這個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)換過程中，計(jì)算機(jī)屏幕會(huì)呈停滯狀態(tài)，看上去好像死機(jī)了。其實(shí)不然，只需耐心等待罷了。原

36、稿在網(wǎng)上成功投出后，作者馬上就能收到編輯部的回執(zhí)。如果有問題，屏幕上則會(huì)出現(xiàn)問題預(yù)警或解決問題的提示。如果作者不能自行解決故障或問題反復(fù)出現(xiàn)，作者可與出版社的網(wǎng)上投稿支持部門聯(lián)系，求得幫助。此外值得一提的是，部分著名出版社的網(wǎng)頁(yè)上除附有投稿需知外，還專門設(shè)計(jì)了針對(duì)網(wǎng)上投稿的指導(dǎo)示范文件。作者初學(xué)乍練時(shí)可以抽時(shí)間學(xué)習(xí)一下。總之，網(wǎng)上投稿并不難，關(guān)鍵是準(zhǔn)備充分，而且在實(shí)際上機(jī)操作時(shí)按部就班，不能單純求快，否則欲速而不達(dá)。 編輯部收到稿件后，有的是直接送審，有的是先進(jìn)行一步初選(主要是檢查論文的英文是否過關(guān))，然后再送審。不論是哪種情況，論文在送審前均需通過最基本的技術(shù)檢查。目的是看原稿是否包含了應(yīng)

37、該有的基本內(nèi)容。有些刊物的編輯部就設(shè)在出版社內(nèi)，這類期刊的檢查會(huì)更全面，包括文件形式、內(nèi)容、作者聯(lián)系方式、文章是否屬于重復(fù)性投稿等等。一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)問題(比如原稿過長(zhǎng)，關(guān)鍵詞不符合要求等)，原稿會(huì)馬上返回作者，進(jìn)行必要的補(bǔ)充和修改。原稿一旦退回作者，文件便會(huì)重新回到作者自己在網(wǎng)上的投稿文件夾里，等候修改。與此同時(shí)，作者的電子信箱內(nèi)同樣會(huì)收到一封編輯部的來信，明確告之稿件應(yīng)該進(jìn)行修改或補(bǔ)充的地方。作者只需上網(wǎng)從自己的文件夾中調(diào)出文件修改即可。一旦文件修改完畢，作者又要根據(jù)出版社信函中的提示，上網(wǎng)按步驟再將原稿發(fā)回刊物的編輯部。這個(gè)操作過程和最開始的投稿大同小異，往往也要將DOC文件轉(zhuǎn)換成PDF文件。原

38、稿返回編輯部送審后，有的會(huì)很干脆地被拒絕，有的會(huì)順利地圓滿接受，但大部分原稿需按審稿人的意見進(jìn)行規(guī)模不同的修改。經(jīng)過作者修改過的稿件又需要在網(wǎng)上重新發(fā)回編輯部。但有的作者在接到主編或編輯部轉(zhuǎn)來的審稿人意見后，對(duì)其評(píng)價(jià)有很大的異議或不愿改動(dòng)自己的論文，便可以主動(dòng)要求退稿。手續(xù)很簡(jiǎn)單，只需向編輯部發(fā)個(gè)電子郵件即可或自己上網(wǎng)撤稿。如果作者愿意根據(jù)審稿人的意見改動(dòng)論文，則需改得全面徹底，并且對(duì)審稿人提出的疑問要一一做答。這份單獨(dú)的問答要整理成一份單獨(dú)的文件，在網(wǎng)上再次發(fā)稿時(shí)使用。如果缺少這份問答文件，在許多期刊網(wǎng)上投發(fā)修改稿時(shí)會(huì)出現(xiàn)障礙，應(yīng)引起作者的注意。修改后的論文要從作者網(wǎng)上的論文文件夾里發(fā)給編輯

39、部，最初的原稿可以存儲(chǔ)在文件夾中，可作者一定要確定第二次投出的稿件是修改后的文件，而不是初稿。這種張冠李戴的事在網(wǎng)上投稿過程中時(shí)有發(fā)生。文件名稱明明顯示是修改稿，可審稿人打開文件后才發(fā)現(xiàn)是初稿又原封不動(dòng)地回來了，讓人有點(diǎn)哭笑不得。修改過的稿件回到編輯部后，原稿的編碼序號(hào)不變，只是多了一或二個(gè)尾數(shù)，表明是修改稿。有的稿件改動(dòng)一次即可被刊物采納，但也有的要反復(fù)修改多次才能被通過。對(duì)被否定的文章，如果作者對(duì)否定的原因有異議，可以向編輯部或主編提出自己的意見，據(jù)理力爭(zhēng)。如果主編同意作者的意見，文章可以重新進(jìn)入新的一輪審稿程序。這種情況不多，但在網(wǎng)上這樣的文章也同樣記錄在案。在網(wǎng)上投出的稿件不論改動(dòng)多少

40、回，其序號(hào)都不會(huì)改變，只有尾數(shù)的變動(dòng)，以表明是修改后的第幾稿。比如R1是第一次修改稿，R2是第二份修改稿，依此類推。但每份修改過的文件在網(wǎng)上都有記錄，而且每份審稿人的意見也都記錄在案。不單如此，整個(gè)審稿過程中經(jīng)過刊物網(wǎng)頁(yè)發(fā)給作者的電子郵件也都有記錄。總之，每一個(gè)步驟都有據(jù)可查，只要整個(gè)系統(tǒng)不出問題，就不會(huì)有稿件丟失的情況發(fā)生。 由此可見，網(wǎng)上投稿的好處的確很多，難怪深受廣大作者的歡迎?，F(xiàn)在有許多科技期刊已經(jīng)告別了郵寄和電子郵件的時(shí)代，開始只受理網(wǎng)上投稿。今后，這樣的期刊可能會(huì)越來越多。所以，能自如地駕馭好網(wǎng)上投稿這個(gè)新的投稿手段，對(duì)學(xué)者們而言無(wú)疑是件好事。 附錄1.SCI投稿信件的一些套話一、

41、投稿信1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - .Yours sincerely2. Dear Dr. A:Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this jo

42、urnal because it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journals readers.3. Dear Dr. A:Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integri

43、ty of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.We appreciate your consideration of our man

44、uscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.二、詢問有無(wú)收到稿件Dear Editors,We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us k

45、now whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.三、詢問論文審查回音Dear Editors，It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering

46、whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.四、關(guān)于論文的總體審查意見1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below.2. This is a well-written paper containing intere

47、sting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the

48、 subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as 4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of bec

49、ause the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - . 6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory. 7. We fe

50、el that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.8. The wording and style of some section, part

51、icularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is cl

52、early unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?五、給編輯的回信1. In reply to the referees main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that One minor point raised by the refe

53、ree concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referees comments very carefully an

54、d conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3. Thank you for your letter of and for the

55、 referees comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referees suggestion. You will see that o

56、ur original findings are confirmed.5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red. 6. We found the referees comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript 7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers

57、in their opening sentence.8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conc

58、lude that intrinsic factor is not account.10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.11. I feel that the reviewers comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.13