what that means? (NPG- Nature Method's assessment on my abstract) (??)

[blue89]

Hi ;

 

I have (pre)submitted my project's abstract (only abstract) to NPG- Nature Methods journal and it has been replied (assessed).

I will write the report there without giving title and My name- surname. but actually I could not be sure that which one was the actual reason for being inappropriate (probable reasons that I think will be given at last ) I see two reasons but cannot be sure which one was the actual reason , it seems like their reply contains a contradiction. because I already think that my project should be especially very very suitable for lboratory studies.. but when we look the decision text ,it seems like a contradiction. this journal's IF>32, so I do not think that this journal be such a easy journal or be concentrated on easy (basic) subjects

 

 

I am writing the reply at first there (copy paste):

 

 

Dear ...

 

 

Thank you for your inquiry about submitting your paper entitled " ...." to Nature Methods. After examining the work I'm sorry to say that submission to Nature Methods would not be appropriate.

We do not doubt the technical quality of your work or that it may prove of interest to others working in cancer therapy. However, we think that your work is not suitable for Nature Methods which is devoted to laboratory methods used to investigate basic biological research questions.

Nevertheless, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. I am sorry that on this occasion we cannot be more positive.

Sincerely,

Natalie de Souza, Ph.D.
Chief Editor
Nature Methods

 

 

 

 

probable reasons that I thought

1) this abstract was out of the journal's scope (but laboratory word reminiscents me a contradiction so, I sent this editor a defense including some hard formulas)

 

2) This abstract was not good organised ,or was illogical in use .. etc. ( really she expressed that there were no doubt about technical quality this expression seems like another contradiction if we say that this was illogical or bad .. or ...(!))

 

what can be the actual reason for being inappropriate??

 

what should I do ??

!!: UPDATE

 

THAT EDITOR HAS REPLIED AGAIN (really very short reply ,I had written too long defense in comparison)

 

it says ;

 

Dear ..

 

Thank you for this and your other letters. I suggest you submit the paper elsewhere, I don' t think it's right for Nature Methods.

Sincerely,

 

Natalie de Souza

this last reply was around 2-3 minutes ago (hot)

 

note: I am not doing grammatical errorrs at real. only problem my keyboard is spoilt this commonly causes spelling faults and spelling faults may cause grammatical faults appearance,I apologise for this. and will try to care it how possible is. there has not been detected in this text such gramatical errors.

Edited August 26, 2016 by blue89

[Phi for All]

She didn't say there was no doubt about the technical quality. She said, "We do not doubt the technical quality", meaning that the quality is not what they are questioning; they rejected the paper based on another reason, that they are primarily interested in the methodologies used in the lab, NOT in answering biological questions themselves.

 

This journal publishes papers on techniques that improve basic laboratory research and testing. They're saying the journal isn't the correct one for your paper.

[blue89]

She didn't say there was no doubt about the technical quality. She said, "We do not doubt the technical quality", meaning that the quality is not what they are questioning; they rejected the paper based on another reason, that they are primarily interested in the methodologies used in the lab, NOT in answering biological questions themselves.

 

This journal publishes papers on techniques that improve basic laboratory research and testing. They're saying the journal isn't the correct one for your paper.

 

excuse me ,I could not understand well ,have you implied that "we do no doubt..." used as this one "we could not be persuaded.." ??

[Strange]

 

excuse me ,I could not understand well ,have you implied that "we do no doubt..." used as this one "we could not be persuaded.." ??

 

No. She is politely saying that they have not looked at the technical quality. The quality is irrelevant. They are not interested in the paper because it is not the sort of paper they publish.

[blue89]

 

No. She is politely saying that they have not looked at the technical quality. The quality is irrelevant. They are not interested in the paper because it is not the sort of paper they publish.

 

welcome strange ,how is everthing going ? I hope you feel good.

 

ok. but isn't this detail a bit strange? -->> I had sent this abstract to ecanvermedicalscience( the abstract which sent to nature-methods is only a bit reformed type of this ) , their senior editor reported me very kindly/politely that they had had no required protocols for proposal projects. but she suggested me to contact such journals which have enough protocols note : she was thanking me in her all e-mails ,I Ioved this. ok).

 

but the strange thing is the incoordination between these two events.

I had seen someones were publishing at ecancermedicalscience and their interests (graduate department or institution) were quite irrelevant/far from cancer ilness. and now

I am sure nature's this journal is not such weak journal (note also IF>32 !) that we be able to think their scope is not enough. this seems a bit illogical.

and because of this ,really I have been surprised!

[Phi for All]

I am sure nature's this journal is not such weak journal (note also IF>32 !) that we be able to think their scope is not enough. this seems a bit illogical.

and because of this ,really I have been surprised!

 

It's not that the journal is weak. The journal doesn't publish papers like yours.

 

As an analogy, if you wrote an article about better ways to fly an airplane, you would have the most interest from a journal that published papers on flying. BUT, if you submitted your paper to a journal that published papers about better ways to build airplanes, they might send you a letter like the one you got from ecancermedicalscience. Does that make sense?

[Strange]

ok. but isn't this detail a bit strange? -->> I had sent this abstract to ecanvermedicalscience( the abstract which sent to nature-methods is only a bit reformed type of this ) , their senior editor reported me very kindly/politely that they had had no required protocols for proposal projects. but she suggested me to contact such journals which have enough protocols

 

I think you would have to quote exactly what she said for us to understand what she meant. Your reporting of her reply is not very clear (e.g. I can't make any sense of "they had had no required protocols for proposal projects").

 

 

I had seen someones were publishing at ecancermedicalscience and their interests (graduate department or institution) were quite irrelevant/far from cancer ilness.

 

Presumably the content of the paper was relevant, even if the institution doesn't seem to be.

[blue89]

ok ,actually I do not love speculative discussisons about my works ,I am intimately series.firstly I will share my raper's title directly and will share that senior editors original comment.

 

title

 

The New Form Of treatment for Cancer Ilness Under Convenience Of Functional Analaysis' Contexts To Research Newest Clues about >3D space

 

dear Phi for all ,the thing that you have told is very simple,I apologise but I do not think that your both two comments be corect.

wait I am opening my e-mail.

I apologise Strange , you are right if you do not believe me ,but intinmately I am speaking truly.

unfortunately , since I have registered to nature's "translational psychiatry" journal, my outlook account frequently has been collapsed!..

it cannot be opened now I cannot reach my e-mail

Edited August 26, 2016 by blue89

[Function]

I will share my raper's title directly

 

Am I the only one who chuckled at this?