Diferenças

Aqui você vê as diferenças entre duas revisões dessa página.

--- projetos:dengue:aabc [2008/11/24 10:34] – criada paulojus
+++ projetos:dengue:aabc [2008/11/24 11:27] (atual) – paulojus
@@ Linha 1: / Linha 1: @@
 ====== Artigo AABC ======
   * **Título**: An Entomological Surveillance System Based on Open Spatial Information for Participative Dengue Control
-  * **Autores**: LEDA REGIS, WAYNER VIEIRA DE SOUZA, ANDRÉ FREIRE FURTADO, CLAUDIO DUARTE DA FONSECA, JOSÉ CONSTANTINO SILVEIRA Jr, PAULO JUSTINIANO
+  * **Autores**: LEDA REGIS, WAYNER VIEIRA DE SOUZA, ANDRÉ FREIRE FURTADO, CLAUDIO DUARTE DA FONSECA, JOSÉ CONSTANTINO SILVEIRA Jr, PAULO JUSTINIANO RIBEIRO Jr, MARIA ALICE VARJAL DE MELO-SANTOS, MARÍLIA SA CARVALHO, ANTONIO MIGUEL VIEIRA MONTEIRO
-RIBEIRO Jr, MARIA ALICE VARJAL DE MELO-SANTOS, MARÍLIA SA CARVALHO, ANTONIO MIGUEL VIEIRA MONTEIRO
+  * **Periódico**: [[http://aabc.abc.org.br/|Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (AABC)]]
-  * **Periódico**:
   * **submetido em:** ??/??/2008
+  * {{:projetos:dengue:aabc:regisetalaabc2008.pdf|Versão submetida}}
   * **status:** (24/11/228): aceito (minor changes)
 ===== Referee Reports =====
-  * Carta Editor:<code>
+  * **Carta Editor:**<code>
   REF.: 186/08
   To Prof. Regis, Lêda
@@ Linha 38: / Linha 38: @@
   aabc@abc.org.br
 </code>
+  * **Editor's Comments:**
+The article has been reviewed by two referees and both recommended publication after minor changes.
+  * Editor's Report:
+Recommendation: Publish after minor revision
+  * **Referee 1 - Comments:**
+{{:projetos:dengue:aabc:aabc_c_assessor_378_590.pdf|(Attached)}}
+<code>
+Referee 1 - Report:
+Recommendation: The Manuscript is acceptable: moderate revisions
+QUESTION: Is this an important and relevant scientific contribution?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Is this contribution of broad international interest?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: To your knowledge, was the content of this manuscript already
+published somewhere else?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Is the subject or concept developed enough to be worth reporting?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are data sufficient to support the interpretations presented?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are there any technical errors?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Does the title reflect the content of the manuscript?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Does the abstract present the main conclusions of the manuscript?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Are the keywords appropriate?
+ANSWER:
+QUESTION: Are illustrations adequate?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Can illustrations be condensed or eliminated without compromising the
+scientific information of the article?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Are figure captions clear and concise?
+ANSWER:
+QUESTION: Are references current and adequate?
+ANSWER:
+QUESTION: Does the text need major rewriting?
+ANSWER:
+Rating
+QUESTION: Overall Rating of the Paper
+ANSWER: 4
+</code>
+  * **Referee 2 - Comments:**
+Major Comments: This is a nicely conducted study which deserves to be published
+immediately due to its high importance for public health.
+Minor points:
+Abstract: The first sentence is too long. I suggest the authors to split it in
+two sentences.
+page 3: the sentence " Upon studying the blood meal frequency of Ae. aegypti
+field populations in Thailand, Scott et al. (2000) estimated that, on average,
+a female takes 0.76 human blood meal..." What is 0.76, in which unit is this,
+arbitratry units or microliters of blood ? Please fix this point.
+Page 6: I suggest the inclusion of the ovitrap picture.
+Page 7: the word architecture on the title  is mispelled. Please fix it.
+Page 11: something is missing in the sentence " Para ampliar a capacidade do
+setor....(DE ???) saude..."
+  * **Referee 2 - Report:**
+Recommendation: The Manuscript is acceptable: present form or minor
+<code>
+---Question
+QUESTION: Is this an important and relevant scientific contribution?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Is this contribution of broad international interest?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: To your knowledge, was the content of this manuscript already
+published somewhere else?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Is the subject or concept developed enough to be worth reporting?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are data sufficient to support the interpretations presented?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are there any technical errors?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Does the title reflect the content of the manuscript?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Does the abstract present the main conclusions of the manuscript?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are the keywords appropriate?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are illustrations adequate?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Can illustrations be condensed or eliminated without compromising the
+scientific information of the article?
+ANSWER: No
+QUESTION: Are figure captions clear and concise?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Are references current and adequate?
+ANSWER: Yes
+QUESTION: Does the text need major rewriting?
+ANSWER: Yes
+---Rating
+QUESTION: Overall Rating of the Paper
+ANSWER: 5 (high)
+</code>
+  * **Editorial Manager's Comments:**
+Please, don't forget to {{:projetos:dengue:aabc:aabc_c_assessor_378_590.pdf|Read the attachments!}}

Diferenças

Navegação

Busca

Ferramentas

QR Code