My first paper: please read, review, and advise

[devildoc2]

OK so I submitted a paper to a journal and 3 months later I finally got a response. They said that it needed "minor" revisions. The actual quote from the reviewer was:

This is an important manuscript. Local deliveryapproaches for the
management of BPH and cancer are increasing. For these to be rational, it
is critical to be able to evaluate the distribution of delivered agent. The
is the focus of the present manuscript. Overall, there is little to quibble
with in this manuscript other than it's length. The authors can reduce the
length by at least one-third without losing any detail needed.

Ok so this sounds like I have a decent chance of publication. However, this reviewer's critique is too vague. He didnt tell me anything about which part of the paper should be cut.

I didnt think it was that long anyways. In Microsoft Word, its about 30 pages, but thats double spaced large text. I'm assuming that when they actually publish it in the journal it will be much smaller in length because they use very small typeset and single spacing.

OK, so where I need help is what parts to cut out. Any and all comments appreciated.

You can find the paper online by clicking the link below. Unfortunately, I had to put all the figures/tables as separate files, because the web site had a maximum upload file size of 1 MB.

http://devildoc3.95mb.com/

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[the citizen]

Your boss should be able to help you out. Ask the editor the word/character count limits for publication and the number of figures allowed. 14 figures is way too many for any journal. Streamline the paper and put the rest in supplementals.

 

[xanthines]

Journals typically have an "Instruction to the Authors" page on which you can find all the technical requirements for publications (ie length, image quality, etc). Many times, different sections have different length requirements like limitations on materials and methods, but no limitations on results.

-X

OK so I submitted a paper to a journal and 3 months later I finally got a response. They said that it needed "minor" revisions. The actual quote from the reviewer was:



Ok so this sounds like I have a decent chance of publication. However, this reviewer's critique is too vague. He didnt tell me anything about which part of the paper should be cut.

I didnt think it was that long anyways. In Microsoft Word, its about 30 pages, but thats double spaced large text. I'm assuming that when they actually publish it in the journal it will be much smaller in length because they use very small typeset and single spacing.

OK, so where I need help is what parts to cut out. Any and all comments appreciated.

You can find the paper online by clicking the link below. Unfortunately, I had to put all the figures/tables as separate files, because the web site had a maximum upload file size of 1 MB.

http://devildoc3.95mb.com/

 

[b&ierstiefel]

That is good news. Your paper will be published. Just address the concerns when revising the manuscript. Then in the rebuttal letter, address each criticism point by point. Your boss will probably take care of this part, however.

If your paper got rejected, you'd know it.