how to response the Reviewers' comments, help thanks! - (Sep/16/2008 )
my paper has been required to revise. we used 3 month rats to ovariectomize as a model of estrogen-deficient osteoporosis in our study.
the Reviewers think 6 month rats is better
reviewer1
Three month old rats are still growing, and are not skeletally mature. It is generally considered that a mature rat is 6 months old, although 4 months should be the minimum age to begin a study such as this. Statements made in the 2nd para of Discussion should be changed to reflect this.
2
The rats used in this study were 3 months old at the beginning. They are too young to examine bone changes because they grow very fast. In general, rats more than 6 months old should be used to evaluate bone changes following OVX.
how to response those comments? thanks
the Reviewers think 6 month rats is better
reviewer1
Three month old rats are still growing, and are not skeletally mature. It is generally considered that a mature rat is 6 months old, although 4 months should be the minimum age to begin a study such as this. Statements made in the 2nd para of Discussion should be changed to reflect this.
2
The rats used in this study were 3 months old at the beginning. They are too young to examine bone changes because they grow very fast. In general, rats more than 6 months old should be used to evaluate bone changes following OVX.
how to response those comments? thanks
Actually I've no idea about rat bone growth (i.e. if the statements are correct or not), but you have to explain with good reasons why you used rats in this stage and not older ones. Or if you have no convincing reasons, perhaps repeat the experiments. Generally you should follow suggestions of reviewers if they are not wrong, impracticable, etc. But if you don't accept their suggestions, you need to make a good case for it.
As hobglobin suggested, you have to reply with a proper argument with some references exactly stating the reasons for using the younger rats. This will be important as both reviewers have the same comments. If you think the argument might not be convincing then, I try the experiments in older rats and send it back with new data. I am guessing you must have a valid reason to do the experiments in the younger rats. The important thing is that the reviewers have not rejected the study, which is the most important thing. Their main comment is the age of the rats, so if you can convince them on this point, you could have the paper accepted.
good Luck !!!
thank you for your reply. i think the the Reviewers' comments are right. oh my !
if there is no strong background to use 3 month old rats for your study, you will have difficulties to dissipate the reviewers concerns; you have at least two possibilities: doing the experiments with 6 months old rats, or, secondly, to submit the ms to another journal...
hi
after i searched the related references, i think maybe i have some reasons why i choose 3 month rats. if you were the reviewer, which one or ones could convince you? thanks
1.
in many published articles, they used 3 month rats as well. (i can list 6 related references. )
2.
bone elongation at proximal tibia almost ceases at 3 months in a female rat (have references). so all the tests related the proximal tibia have not been affected.
3.
our analysis of the secondary spongiosa at one mm distal to the growth plate to avoid any new bone growth as well as to exclude primary spongiosa where trabeculae are modeling and to restrict the analysis to the secondary spongiosa whose prevailing activity is remodeling
4.
however, Studies in older rats(6 month or older), or ideally in another experimental model that has a true Haversian system and with remodeling cancellous bone, would be better.
thank you my reviewers, i am looking forward you reply!!!!!
What is your experimental paradigm? When do you overectomize the rats and when do you do the experiments?
The 4th argument actually supports the reviewers suggestion. How do you plan to use it.
The second point & third points are good and if you build a good argument, it may work. The first one, doesnt really make a point.
The 4th argument actually supports the reviewers suggestion. How do you plan to use it.
The second point & third points are good and if you build a good argument, it may work. The first one, doesnt really make a point.
i have done the experiment one year ago. and we actually want to start a further study this year. and after considering the comments of those reviewers, we want to chose 6 month rats. should i add this information in the "Response to Reviewers" letter? thanks
after i searched the related references, i think maybe i have some reasons why i choose 3 month rats. if you were the reviewer, which one or ones could convince you? thanks
1.
in many published articles, they used 3 month rats as well. (i can list 6 related references. )
2.
bone elongation at proximal tibia almost ceases at 3 months in a female rat (have references). so all the tests related the proximal tibia have not been affected.
3.
our analysis of the secondary spongiosa at one mm distal to the growth plate to avoid any new bone growth as well as to exclude primary spongiosa where trabeculae are modeling and to restrict the analysis to the secondary spongiosa whose prevailing activity is remodeling
4.
however, Studies in older rats(6 month or older), or ideally in another experimental model that has a true Haversian system and with remodeling cancellous bone, would be better.
thank you my reviewers, i am looking forward you reply!!!!!
so, in your letter of rebuttal, you should detail the articles which examined the 3 months rat, and stress why you also took 3 months old rat; do not discuss too much for 6 months old rat; anyway, you have to make some changes to the ms; after re-submission you have to wait;
if your ms will be rejected, you like to submit to another journal; you may propose all of the authors who took 3 months old rat for reviewing
Don't tell them you future plans in your response to the reviewers. They will simply tell you do it in the older rats and come back later.