Editor's Letters and Responses - Assignment Example

Pre Request Dear editor, I would be most grateful for you to consider my mini-analysis on heat shock proteins and their functions in the human body. As you are no doubt aware, heat shock proteins are present in each cell of an organism. A sort of chaperone, they play significant roles in protein folding and unfolding, assembly, and protection of cells. Since these proteins were discovered by Feruccio Ritossa, a number of publications and studies have been presented detailing the proteins and their purposes, which I have tried to bring together into a mini-analysis here. The review is structured to begin with an abstract of the paper stating its overall aims and importance to the field of research, and then introduces the concept of heat shock proteins in a more thorough manner, drawing from recently published papers and studies as well as important older ones. Also included is a table which outlines the diversity of the major molecular HSP families, details on synthesizing the heat shock proteins, and a summary of several of this chaperone proteins use in signal transduction, cell survival, immune response mechanics, and the effect of environmental stress factors on HSP responsiveness. The review is exhaustive, citing from thirty different papers on the topic after removing the irrelevant citations. The included cited papers range in date from 2006 to 2015, so that the mini-analysis represents a summary of the latest research on this important topic. Given the importance of HSPs in a number of areas, it is the hope of the author that this paper might serve a useful purpose in helping researchers keep up to date on the topic. Sincerely, NAME Response to Reviewers Comments 1. As well this mini-research contributes positively to the discovery of heat shock response which was discovered by Francis Ritossa in 1962 who made this accomplishment through an observation while treating flies. This mini-analysis would therefore contribute positively to the research on the thermal shock induced in an organism’s cells. This mini-analysis has been exhaustive enough a result of which it has made major establishments regarding heat shock proteins. Thank you for these positive comments about the paper. The author is pleased that the work and analysis is perceived as having a positive impact on research into this topic. 2. The mini-review leaves not much for the reader to figure out, with a section that defines the various terms (HSPs, T2DM, RNA, DNA, and ATP) that might give the reader a comprehension challenge. The author is particularly pleased to see this section called out in your review. It is often the case that terms are not clearly defined, and the author hoped that, by doing just that, the paper and its conclusions would be accessible to a wider audience than is common for such topics. However, based on comments from the editor, this section has been removed to improve the flow of the paper and keep it properly on topic. 3. It would have been more inclusive if the topic had incorporated the idea of Chaperons to become: the shock proteins and Chaperons, and their functions in the human body. Thank you for this idea, which is certainly worth considering at length. However, as pointed out by the editor, the heat shock proteins are chaperones, and in that sense this suggestion is redundant. Furthermore, a number of changes have been made to keep the paper on the relevant topics, as you suggest. 4. The grammar simplicity is complemented by using graphical elaborations, charts and diagrams. There were no grammatical errors, and all the in text notations were quoted perfectly. The author is pleased to hear that the charts and diagrams included aided in reading comprehension. While these comments are appreciated, the author has since improved the work further based on a number of suggestions for clarity and relevance from the editor. Again, the author would like to extent thanks for your thorough review and suggestions for improving the paper. Response to Editors Comments The author would like to start off by thanking you profusely for your great attention to detail in your review of the submitted mini-analysis on Heat Shock Proteins. Following your advice in those comments has led to a much improved paper which is clearer and more relevant to the topic at hand. Here are some of the changes made to the paper based on your suggestions: 1. Chaperones not Chaperons This change has now been made throughout the paper. My apologies for the error. 2. I think you mean extracellular! Extracurricular means ‘out side the curriculum’ I have fixed this typo, as well as the many other spelling errors you pointed out. My thanks again for your thoroughness. 3. The HSPs are chaperones You are entirely correct. This sentence now reads: "This mini-review will focus on defining and analyzing the functionalities of the heat shock proteins." 4. The ‘definition of terms’ section could be removed. Thank you for this suggestion. I have thought it over and, while the reviewer commented on its usefulness, I think you are correct that it does not have much place in a paper of this level. I have removed the section. 5. Provide citation. I have added a citation to the comment on the discovery of the heat shock response. 6. Do you mean ‘causing’ or ‘preventing’? HSPs are usually protective. I have changed this sentence to say: "HSPs usually play an important part in preventing various diseases..." 7. Poor grammer, re-write. I have revised this sentence at the end of the introduction. Please let me know what you think. 8. In the previous section, it was stated that HSPs are induced by a range of stimuli, but here it is written that HSPs are induced by heat. Please excuse this contradiction. I have changed the text to say: "They refer to a group of proteins that are induced by heat and other external stimuli." 9. Not a good citation. Find source scientific paper. I have changed the citation, which now points to the source paper: Gaestel, M.2006.Molecular chaperones in health and disease. (Springer e-books.)Berlin: Springer. 10. ‘Aging has frequently been described…’ is a better way to express this. Thank you for this suggestion. I have rewritten this sentence to say: "Aging has frequently been described because of disoriented functions of the repair process." 11. It is not clear why this figure has been included. It has not been cited in this text before it appears. I have moved the figure to after an explanation of why it is included in the paper. Please let me know if this step does not address your concerns. 12. Figure is too small to evaluate. This could have been inserted and referred to earlier in the review. The legend does not describe the figure well. I have removed this figure. Please see the other letter for details of this and other unsolicited changes. 13. Crops are not relevant to this review! For this and other areas where you pointed out that what I wrote was not relevant to the review, I thank you. I have removed the sections which you pointed out and hope that the paper is much clearer and more relevant now. Please tell me if I have missed any of your comments or if you feel that the paper needs further changes to be made to it. Sincerely, NAME Unsolicited Changes In addition to the changes suggested by you and the reviewer, I have made a few unsolicited changes to further improve the paper, as detailed below: 1. Removal of the second figure in the paper The original draft of the paper contained two figures, one which shows how temperature stress could cause HSPs to act and a second figure which showed a proposed mechanism of the regulation of the HSP response. Given the small size of the second figure, and the fact that its legend does not describe it well as per your comments, I have seen fit to simply remove this second figure altogether instead of moving it earlier in the paper and enlarging it with a better legend as you suggested. 2. Removal of irrelevant citations and sections. As you suggested, I have deleted all the sections which dealt with plant life and other kinds of organisms. I have also removed the citations to these sections from the reference list for clarity and because they were no longer in the paper. 3. General review and revision In addition to the changes above, I have re-read the entire paper and tried when I can to revise it so that grammer and spelling and other things are clearer. I hope that the changes I made have had a positive effect on it. If you have questions about any of the revision please tell me. Please let me know if anything is unclear about these changes, or if you have any further questions. Sincerely, NAME Letter to the Editor Dear Editor, I am happy to be able to submit to you a revised version of my mini-analysis, "The Heat Shock Proteins and their Functions in the Human Body." In response to the comments left by you and your reviewer on the paper, I have made significant changes throughout the paper, especially making sure that the grammar and spelling are correct. I have also removed the sections which you marked as not relevant to the topic, so that the revised paper is a much more tightly focused product which deals only with issues specific to the topic of heat shock proteins in the human body. Another area I wish to point out is citations. I have removed the irrelevant citations for the paragraphs no longer relevant, and have also made sure to find more appropriate sources for the citations which you flagged as inappropriate. Was there anything else in that area that you felt needed to be changed? I have written the details for the changes I made to the paper in a separate letter to you and to the reviewer assigned to my paper. Finally, I have also noted a few unsolicited changes which I felt improved the paper even more. Please let me know if anything is still unclear. To conclude, it is my sincere hope that the revised paper now meets your standards and is deemed to be fit for the publication in your journal. Sincerely, NAME Read More