时历29月之久，在导师张奠湘研究员指导下，本人第一次独立开展的五加科鹅掌柴开花物候与传粉实验，历经最最基本的每日每木每花数据记录，修改修改再修改得快要吐血，历时7个月等待国外同行的评论意见之后，终于向杂志递交了手稿。呼……

期间的每一天都好几遍的查看Status，希望尽快地进入下一环节，这感觉似乎怀孕的女人等待她孩子到来的样子，哈哈，现在想来，真的很激动。

虽然最终没能有幸被接受，但是审稿人的建议还是帮助不小，对手稿的修改提供了不少的方向，再次感谢两位匿名审稿人，还有Annals of Botany杂志的工作人员。

自己的体会就是：

1）文章的类型要符合杂志的兴趣；

2）特别写好introduction和methods部分，这一点越前沿的杂志要求越高；

3）选择一种适合自己的文献编辑软件，例如Endnote，但是也要仔细核对，有时候软件附带的格式会与杂志最新的格式要求有微小的差异，这时需要手工从软件源头重新编写。另外，如果老师或其他合作者新加入文献引用的话，你最好自己校对一遍，他们有时候也会犯点小错误，而这些都会影响最终的录用与否；

4）此处不发表，自有投稿出。前提是你要好好参考审稿人的意见，把手稿修改到最好的状态，再次出手。

不妨贴上他们的返修意见，供各位看官一阅：

March 26, 2010

Dear Professor Zhang

Thank you for sending your manuscript entitled "Synchronized protandrous dichogamy in a tropical secondary forest tree, Schefflera octophylla (Araliaceae)" to Annals of Botany. It has been evaluated by referees whose reports are given at the end of this letter. Comments from the Handling Editor Professor Don Levin are also given at the end.

In the light of the referees' reports and the Handling Editor's views I have decided that we cannot proceed further with your paper. The decision also means that we would be unable to consider a modified version being re-submitted sometime in the future. This decision is based on opinion of the scientific merits of your work in relation to other papers submitted to Annals of Botany.

I am sorry not to give you better news. Please understand that because of the high volume of submissions and limited space, Annals of Botany can publish less than 25 % of the submissions it receives. Thus, we have little choice but to apply strict criteria to deciding which papers to accept. I wish you every success in finding an alternative journal to publish this research.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact annalsbotany@le.ac.uk at our Editorial Office. Thank you for considering Annals of Botany.



Yours sincerely,


J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison
Chief Editor
Annals of Botany

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Handling Editor and Reviewer comments

Handling Editor:

Both reviewers of the paper thought that the topic in question was worthy of study. Unfortunately, they concluded that the paper had serious deficiencies which prevent its acceptance for publication.

Perhaps foremost is the observation that the paper fails to demonstrate that the observed dichogamous system effectively prevents self-fertilization and enhances fitness. We don't even know of the species is self-fertile. Nor do we know whether different inflorescences within plants were synchronized. Nor do we know if flower visitors were indeed pollinators. Many terms in the paper were incorrectly applied. The authors claim to have shown negative and positive aspects of synchronous flowering, but indeed neither has been demonstrated. Finally, poor English usage throughout the paper hampers the reading.



Referee #1's Review for 10179:

Decision:
Unacceptable

Priority Score:
D

Originality:
D

Title indicates contents clearly:
Yes

Abstract and Key Words are satisfactory:
No

Introduction is clear and concise:
No

Methods are described adequately:
No

Results are set-out logically:
Yes

Discussion is appropriate and concise:
No

References are necessary and sufficient:
Yes

Tables are needed and clear:
No

Diagrams & drawings are needed and clear:
No

Photographs contribute usefully to the paper:
Yes

Figure legends are complete and accurate:
No

Statistical analyses are satisfactory:
N/A

Comments for the Author (Required):

The heart of this paper is a descriptive study of the timing of flower production in a species of Araliaceae with architecturally complex inflorescences that exhibit waves of synchronized protandry. There are also notes on insect floral visitors (here called pollinators, although there is little information about comparative pollination effectiveness.) The descriptive study is valuable, but the current version of the MS suffers from some weaknesses.

The principal message is that the synchronized dichogamy will strongly favor xenogamy. This surely is true within an inflorescence, but I found it hard to know whether there might be multiple inflorescences per tree blooming in a way that allows temporal overlap of male and female phases. That would foster geitonogamy. The descriptions are too vague, and I found Figure 2 confusing. (The figure captions are generally too short to be helpful; for example, what is meant by "frequency" in Fig. 1?) It seems from the Discussion that the authors did not give this possibility much consideration; rather, they seemed focused on within-inflorescence phenomena. Readers need more thorough discussion of the overall flowering behavior of large trees to be able to evaluate the central claim that synchrony effectively enforces outcrossing.

The Discussion puzzled me in a few ways. The authors talk about synchronized flowering and mast fruiting in parallel, as if these were the same phenomenon. Yes, they are related, but have very different contexts and consequences. On page 17, the references to theoretical ideas such as geometric mean fitness and timeframe shifts are cryptic; these need to be explained much more fully. Lines 14-18 on p. 16 are also unclear; the reference to "our hypothesis" leaves me completely confused. Similarly, the arguments for duodichogamy are too brief to be understandable.

There are a number of minor errors, some involving English usage and others involving names of insects or biologists. On p. 16, line 3 seems to call the housefly Musca domestica a butterfly (see also p. 13, line 13). Thomson is misspelled as Thompson; Gross is misspelled as Gloss. The non-word "receptible" is used in place of "receptive" throughout.

Other miscellany: on p. 9, the word "syndromes" should be removed. In the methods for pollen counting, I wonder if the procedure described was enough to get all the grains out of the anthers and into suspension. This is frequently done by sonication, but apparently not here. Were steps taken to demonstrate that the grains were released?



Referee #2's Review for 10179:

Decision:
Unacceptable

Priority Score:
E - Lowest Priority

Originality:
D

Title indicates contents clearly:
Yes

Abstract and Key Words are satisfactory:
No

Introduction is clear and concise:
No

Methods are described adequately:
No

Results are set-out logically:
No

Discussion is appropriate and concise:
No

References are necessary and sufficient:
Yes

Tables are needed and clear:
No

Photographs contribute usefully to the paper:
Yes

Figure legends are complete and accurate:
No

Statistical analyses are satisfactory:
No

Comments for the Author (Required):

This paper details an interesting flowering pattern of Schefflera octophylla, explaining the patterns of: male and female phases in the bisexual flowers borne in umbels, nectar production, and insect visitation. However, as written, the paper fails to make the case that the described dichogamous system effectively prevents self-fertilization and thus increases fitness.
First, and perhaps most importantly, we are never told if the species is self-compatible. If not, the whole issue of avoiding self-fertilization is moot (although one might invoke stigma jamming as a problem).
Second, the authors have not investigated anything about pollination. All they know is visitation -- that often has nothing to do with effective pollination.
Despite their assertion that "synchronous" protandrous dichogamy prevents selfing in individuals of this species, their Fig. 2 clearly shows that the male phase of some flowers overlap the female phase of flowers of the same tree. Perhaps selfing within an umbellet does not occur but geitonogamy should be a very real possibility.
In fact, their Fig.3 with the highest seed set on "secondary" umbels strongly suggests geitonogamy.
Their comments about "pollinators" (=visitors) [p. 15 line 17) are not correct. Syrphid flies are major pollinators of many species, vespid wasps (excluding Masarinae) are not. Both are nectar feeders, neither are pollen collectors.
Their usage throughout of primary, secondary, and tertiary umbels is not standard. Usually these refer to successive physical layers, not times of flowering (although they can be correlated).
Other points:
The authors repeat three times that "fitness is proportional to (the) geometric mean (of) survival and reproduction" (e.g., p. 4 line 21) but nothing in the paper addresses either survival or reproduction per se.
p. 7 line 7 - is the trunk 0.3 m or the crown 0.3 m?
p. 7 (lines 8-9) The authors say that an inflorescence has 15 panicles, each panicle has 7 unbellets, and each umbellet has ca. 11 flowers. Except for the last, these are given as absolute figures, but the numbers do not match those given on page 10.
p. 7 line 11. The authors say that the flowers have 8 carpels. Do they mean ovules? Table 3 indicated that individual flowers have 6.8--7 ovules. How can a flower have 8 carpels (unless one aborts)?
p. 8 line 16. What was the paired t-test for? To determine the difference? Table 2 isn't much help.
p. 10 The authors indicate that a flower lasts ca. 9.7 days but they claim that there is nectar secretion for 13 days (p. 11 line 15). How can this be? Why would this be?
p. 11 line 4 Why are petals beginning to be shed during the first phase of flowering. This might happen, but petals are usually an attraction device and certainly the flower needs to attract pollinators during the female (last) phase.
p. 11 line 8. Why are ovaries enlarging during the neuter stage? Usually ovaries enlarge only after fertilization. The fruit set data indicate there is no autogamy. Perhaps the authors mean that there is sequential maturation of male and then female organs.
p. 12 line 7. The authors cite Fig. 1 for flowering phases, but this figure shows whole tree phenology.
p. 13 line 13. The sentence " . . . butterflies, Musca domestica and Apis sinensis. " as written makes no sense. The scientific names do not refer to butterflies. I believe the authors mean . . butterflies, the common house fly (Musca domestica), and honeybees (Apis sinensis) . . . They should also note that Apis sinensis is now considered a synonym of Apis cerana.
p. 14. Flies and wasps are classes of visitors. One cannot say "the fly" or "the wasp."
p. 14 line 21 to p. 15 1-4. As mentioned earlier, the authors do not know about pollinators, only visitors.
p. 17 line 16. The authors claim to have shown the positive and negative aspects of synchronous flowering. Neither has been demonstrated.
Finally, the English throughout needs to be corrected. While most of the authors are non-native English speakers, Dr. Schlessman is a native English speaker. He should have more thoroughly edited the manuscript.






------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Annals of Botany Company is a Limited Company registered in England No. 78001 at University of Exeter, Innovation Centre, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4RN UK, and is also a Registered Charity, No. 237771.

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自裴男才科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-434400-311583.html

上一篇：首次出国门
下一篇：5A级男人系统发育树