REJECTED MANUSCRIPT SEEKING EXPERT REVIEW: Overall Synonymous Codon Usage Bias strongly Correlates with Codome Core Length anent Harmonic Mean based Computation of Kullback-Leibler Divergence in an ECA-QCA System
| Main Author: | Praharshit Sharma |
|---|---|
| Format: | info publication-workingpaper Journal |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
, 2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://www.itsoc.org/profile/9590 |
Daftar Isi:
- Scientific Reports Decision on your submission Overall Synonymous Codon Usage Bias strongly Correlates with Codome Core Length anent Harmonic Mean based Computation of Kullback-Leibler Divergence in an ECA-QCA System Dear Authors (Below is the Rejection email from NSR. Experts who can Help improvise our Manuscript for further Positive consideration in other Journals may Contact Praharshit Sharma @ +91 799 515 8734 ). Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Overall Synonymous Codon Usage Bias strongly Correlates with Codome Core Length anent Harmonic Mean based Computation of Kullback-Leibler Divergence in an ECA-QCA System" to Scientific Reports. Regrettably, we are unable to process your submission because your manuscript falls outside the aims and scope of this journal. Scientific Reports considers only scientifically valid original contributions which are analytically and technically sound. Your manuscript, as written, cannot be properly assessed for validity: its introduction does not make it clear what the research question is and how you propose to address it, nor is methodology described clearly enough or in the appreciative amount of detail. A lot of cited background literature does not appear to be relevant, and many generalisations are made without adequate literature support. In the paper you propose to introduce the concept of codome, which encompasses all coding triplets. I remain confused about this concept, as well as the need for it being redefined as codome: you are effectively trying to re-establish biological knowledge known since at least 1970s. It is of course possible I entirely misunderstood the paper, but this simply means that the prose of the paper requires a lot of work before it can be evaluated by specialists. I am also confused about the concept of universal proteome, which is not defined. Overall, these concerns are sufficiently serious to preclude further consideration of this paper. To avoid delaying consideration of your manuscript by another journal, we are rejecting your manuscript. We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion, and hope that you will receive a more favorable response elsewhere. Kind regards, Scientific Reports