Beard Dye Products India

As a month three days after sending my article to peer review was the verdict of the reviewers and the editor.

As the matter was handled "confidential" not posted some crude comments of the reviewers. The good news is that the 3 felt my quality work and interesting results. The bad news is that the editor would like us to do more experiments. The frustrating part is that these experiments do not add new data or reinforce weaknesses that had already presented, they are just different ways of achieving the same result. Worst of all is to make these experiments is not a job for 3 months, would mean to start the purification of protein complex that is responsible for transcribing DNA into RNA in bacteria with which I work. Given that I have that my degree because I expect o make the postdoc and the results of the experiments requested will not significantly improve the quality of my article we decided to remove it from the magazine to the sender and send it to another. The review process leaves me positive things like the comments and observations of the reviewers and the sad consolation that I have published in Molecular Microbiology have 6 months available for work (although in the end the argument "worthy" of experiments asking talacha was more empty than scientific substance were what made us reitirar the paper). This week I reformatted the article to send to "almost certain" Journal of Bacteriology and must await the end of January to know that your reviewers are saying .... A level paper
Mol. Microbiol. has an impact factor of 5.02 and J. Bact to 3.93 a difference of 90 positions in the ranking of scientific publications .... This number is an indicator of how likely it is that my article to be read and have an impact on the scientific community, although the pubmed that I have already fallen to articles in Russian.