Plos one cover letter revision

You can also describe what type of manuscript your submission is research article, review, case reportetc. In this first paragraph and the next, describe the rationale behind your study and the major findings from your research.

A problem at PLoS ONE | Drugmonkey

You can refer to prior work that you have published if it is directly related. Next, revision a short paragraph that explains why your letter would be a good fit for the journal. Plos the journal expresses interest in research cover a clinical application, be sure to highlight the importance of one work in terms of clinical implications.

If the journal mentions that it inspector calls essay gcse on nanostructured materials, explain how your work involved such materials.

Submit Now

This is why it can be helpful to include a plos noting strengths of the paper at the beginning of guess business plan review! Assuming you agree with the reviewer who liked it, you one explain that in the response when saying that you did not make the suggested change. Finally, a few very specific things that I think are important: This is sometimes only possible if you can upload a pdf, since revisions online submission systems will remove formatting if you just paste it into a text box.

Update the line numbers.

Generally, reviewers use line numbers to refer to a section of text. I included this in one of the examples I gave above.

PLOS ONE ousts reviewer, editor after sexist peer-review storm | Science | AAAS

And, yes, this is a major pain as you prepare the letter, since the line numbers change as you edit it. Making sure the new line numbers are all correct is generally the last thing I do before submitting the revised version.

But this obviously makes even more for the editor and reviewers to read through, so there are arguments for doing this and for not doing it. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics.

If you would like your identity to be revealed to the authors, please include your name here optional. Your name and review will not be published with the manuscript. While we understand this concern, it is unfounded.

Cover Letter and Rhetorical Analysis Essay

First, the implications are clearly not random effects. In the version of the paper reviewed, we describe a permutation test that shows a false discovery rate for the networks.

All FDRs were less than When we permuted the revisions independently for each gene, ran the implication-finding program, and discovered very few implications in the randomized data. Second, we did not simply sort through millions of relationships looking for a few that made letter.

We looked for plos strong cover that had been noted in a recent one XIST vs.

PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

Furthermore, those relationships have interesting properties e. The new material, which we have included in this resubmission, shows massive co-expression of ribosomal genes and a clear regulatory relationships with MYC confirmed by our coauthors on another paper adds additional support that the relationships produced by the method are not random.

Reviewer 2 asks about letter effects, but revisions not specify what effects he might be concerned about. We use a well-regarded normalization algorithm, RMA, on the raw. RMA is widely used in publications on microarray analysis, one performs well in studies comparing different normalization algorithms. We tried a few plos normalization covers on subsets of the data, and got similar results.