publicação de artigos científicos e a postura dos autores ... ão de...

FOPUNICAMP

Publicação de Artigos Científicos e a Postura dos

Autores frente aos Editores e Revisores

Mini-Curso apresentado na XI Reunião da SNPqO, XI Jornada ODONTOPED

Fortaleza, CE, 06-11-09

JAIME A CURY

[email protected]

FACULDADE DE ODONTOLOGIA DE PIRACICABAUNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE CAMPINAS

CONTEÚDO

1. O Processo de Submissão

2. O Processo de Revisão

a) Lidando com editores

b) Lidando com revisores

3. EXPERIÊNCIA VIVA (“Depoimento”)

4. Conclusões

REFERENCIAS

1. Day RA & Gastel B. How to write and publish ascientific paper. 6th ed. Greenwood Press, Westport,USA, 2006.

2. Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments2. Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ commentswhen submitting manuscripts for publication. J AmAcad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83.

3. Meus arquivos

Peer Review I: Funções

• Avaliar a originalidade do trabalho, sua qualidade científica e importância clinica

• Fornecer ao autor uma critica construtiva do trabalho e sugerir meios de aperfei çoar o trabalho e sugerir meios de aperfei çoar o manuscrito

• Julgar se o manuscrito apresenta o estudo de maneira clara e concisa

Shellis P. ORCA Summer School, Marburg, Alemanha, 2004

• Possíveis decisões após 1 a revisãoa) Aceito sem mudanças (extremamente raro!)b) Rejeitado c) Autores são solicitados a revisar o paper de acordo com

Peer Review II: O Processo, parte 2

c) Autores são solicitados a revisar o paper de acordo com os comentários dos revisores

Caries Res: ~ 55% (b), ~ 45% (c)

• Decisão (c) geralmente resulta em aceitação da vers ão revisada, mas pode exigir uma 2 a revisão, em casos de dúvidas

Shellis P. ORCA Summer School, Marburg, Alemanha, 20 04

SUBMISSÃO do MANUSCRITO (MS)

1. Revisando o MS a) Instruções aos autores b) Erros gramaticais

2. Submetendo a) Eletrônicamente

b) Convencionalmente

3. .

4.

SUBMISSÃO do MANUSCRITO (MS)

1. Revisando o MS a) Instruções aos autores b) Erros gramaticais

2. Submetendo a) Eletrônicamente

b) Convencionalmente

3. Carta de Encaminhamento (‘Cover Letter’)

4.

STATE UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS FACULTY OF DENTISTRY OF PIRACICABA

Dr. R. P. Shellis Editor-in-Chief of Caries Research Division of Restorative Dentistry Department of Oral and Dental Science University of Bristol Dental School Lower Maudlin Street Bristol BSI 2LY UK

September 27, 2001 Dear Dr. Shellis We would be g rateful if the enclosed “ EFFECT OF A LACTOSE -CONTAINING SWEETENER ON

Faculty of Dentistry of Piracicaba Av. Limeira, 901 - Caixa Postal 52 CEP 13414-900 - Piracicaba - SP – Brazil Telephone: # 55-19- 430-5200 / 430-5201 - Fax : # 55-19- 430-5218

Biochemistry / Cariology Telephone: # 55-19-430-5303 / 430-5302 E-mail: [email protected] Home page: http://www.unicamp.br/fop

We would be g rateful if the enclosed “ EFFECT OF A LACTOSE -CONTAINING SWEETENER ON

ROOT DENTINE DEMINERALIZATON – IN SITU STUDY” could be considered for publication in

Caries Research .

With best wishes, Sincerely yours Jaime A. Cury, DDS, MS, Ph.D. Enclosu res: 3 copies of the manuscript

Endereço


Dr. R. P. Shellis Editor-in-Chief of Caries Research Division of Restorative Dentistry Department of Oral and Dental Science University of Bristol Dental School Lower Maudlin Street Bristol BSI 2LY UK

February 5, 2004

Dear Dr. Shellis We would be grateful if the enclosed “ Effect of a calcium carbonate- based dentifrice

on in situ enamel remineralization ” could be considered for publication in Caries

Research .

With best wishes and regards, Sincerely yours _____________________________ _____________________________ Jaime Aparecido Cury Gustavo Setem Nunes Simões _____________________________ _____________________________ Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury Nilza Cristina Valo r Gonçalves _____________________________ Cínthia Pereira Machado Tabch oury


Dr. Mark C. Herzberg, Editor Journal of Dental Research University of Minnesota School of Dentistry 17-164 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware St., SE Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

October 2 nd, 2002. Dear Dr. Herzberg,

We would be grateful if the enclosed “ APF Application and F- dentifrice on Enamel

Demineralization and in Dental Plaque Formation in situ ” could be considered for

publication in Journal of Dental Research . In addition, we declare that this research

is original and it is not presently under considera tion for publication elsewhere.

We are suggesting as reviewers:

1- William Bowen

Address: University of Rochester Center for Oral Biology 611Elmwood Avenue Box 611 Rochester, NY 14642-8611 USA Phone: (716)275-0772 Fax: (716)473-2679 e-mail: [email protected] Area: Cariology

2- Euan Pearce

Address: Wellington School of Medicine P.O. Box 7343 Wellington South New Zealand Phone: 64-4-384-3083 Fax: 64-4-389-5725 e-mail: [email protected] Area: Cariology

3. Domenicki Zero

Quem não deveria!

Dear Dr.___________

Enclosed are two complete copies of a manuscript by__________________(authors )_______________________titled “_____________( MS title )___________________ ,”which is being submitted for possible publication in the

SAMPLE COVER LETTER

which is being submitted for possible publication in the__________(journal name )________________.This manuscript is new, is not being consideredelsewhere, and reports new findings that extend resultswe reported earlier in ______( reference )_______________.An abstract of this manuscript was presented earlier(Abstr._________(meeting)___________________).

SUBMISSÃO do MANUSCRITO (MS)1. Revisando o MS

a) Instruções aos autores b) Erros gramaticais

2. Submetendo

a) Eletrônicamente

b) Convencionalmente b) Convencionalmente

3. Carta de Encaminhamento (‘Cover Letter’)

4. Acompanhamento da Submissão

Great Journals are born in the hands of the editors ; they die in the hands of businessmen

-Bernand De Voto

1. If you do not receive acknowledgement within 2 weeks (or less forelectronically submitted MS) call or write the editorial of fice.....

2. If you are not advised of the editor’s decision within 8 wee ks, or providedwith an explanation for the delay, do not affraid to call or wr ite to theeditor

3. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to expect a decision, or at least a report, within areasonable period of time.....

À Comissão de Publicação da POB

Sou consciente das dificuldades, mas sinceramente, considero uma falta deconsideração e respeito aos autores, se depois de 10 meses, q ualquer revista domundo, não tiver nenhuma decisão sobre um artigo submetido a publicação . Paratal construí o quadro anexo comparativo da tramitação dos me us últimos artigossubmetidos a publicação em varias revistas do mundo.

Particularmente, com relação a este MS #277, vamos supor que ele não seja aceitopara publicação na revista representativa da SBPqO? Obviam ente, os autorestentarão publicar em outra revista, mas o prejuízo material aos demais co-autores(felizmente não a mim, este é pior, mental) é tempo -irrecuperável . Reflitam nisto !!!(felizmente não a mim, este é pior, mental) é tempo -irrecuperável . Reflitam nisto !!!

O tempo tem me ensinado, que geralmente quanto mais rigorosa é a políticaeditorial de uma revista, mas rápida é a publicação (ver quadro). Com estasrevistas é possível fazer previsões !!!

Jaime

03.11.2002

Quadro da evolução do processo de tramitação da publicação de artigos submetidos no período 07/01 a 03/4/02

DATAS ARTIGO

REVISTA Envio 10

Parecer Parecer

Final

Situação

Atual

Evaluation of the cariogenic potential of cassava……….

Caries Res 04/07/01 *04/04/02 27/05/02 In press 36(6), 2002

The effect of fluoridated dentifrice and/or acidulated ..

Am J Dent 11/09/01 11/2001 12/01 Accepted

Effect of a lactose-containing sweetener on............

Caries Res 27/09/01 23/01/02 18/02/02 **Publicado 36(3), 2002

Effect of Triclosan Dentifrices on Mouth Volatile Sulphur …

J Clin Periodontol

10/10/01

04/12/01 Único

- In press (12), 2002

Effect of a mouthrinse containing selected propolis…

Caries Res 16/10/01 27/06/02 22/07/02 In press 36(6), 2002

Fluoride intake by Brazilian children from two

Community Dent Oral

11/2001 03/2002 10/2002 Accepted children from two Dent Oral

Epidemiol Avaliação da estabilidade do flúor de dentifrícios ....

Pesqui Odontol Bras

05/12/01 NADA ??? ????????

Controle operacional da fluoretação da água de Niterói,

Cadernos de Saúde Pública

15/12/01

05/03/02 14/06/02

No prelo

Relationship among dental plaque composition…

Caries Res 20/12/01 07/03/02 28/06/02 Publicado 36(5), 2002

Efeito dose-resposta de uma formulação.......

Pesqui Odontol Bras

20/12/01 22/06/02 07/02 (?) No prelo 16(4), 2002

Effect of combination of fluoride dentifrice and varnish

Eur J Oral Sci 16/02/01 06/02 10/02 Accepted

Relationship among stressful situations ……..

Eur J Oral Sci 26/02/02 11/04/02 03/06/02 Publicado 110(5), 2002

Auto-percepção da fluorose e satisfação .....

Rev Saúde Publica

03/04/02 11/05/02 17/07/02 No Prelo 36(6), 2002

* Com pedido formal de desculpa pelo atraso **Capa da revista

Many editors see themselves as gifted sculptors, attempting to t urn a block of marble into a lovely statue, and writers as crude chisels. In act ual fact, the writers are the statues, and the editors are pigeons -Doug Robarchek

LIDANDO COM EDITORES

1. Editor (Editores Associados)

2. Editor administrativo2. Editor administrativo

3. Editor redatorial (copyeditor)

• Submissão ao Editor• Editor decide se o paper é adequado a revista• Se adequado, o editor seleciona 2 especialistas par a

revisar o paper

Peer Review II: O Processo, parte 1

revisar o paper• Revisores se reportam ao Editor• Editor toma decisão com base nos comentários dos

revisores e na sua leitura do paper• Editor escreve aos autores

“Thus, the editor of a scientific journal is a scientist, oft en of preeminent standing”

LIDANDO COM EDITORES

Em resumo:1. Problemas com o processo de

pré-aceitação do MS devemreportados ao EDITORreportados ao EDITOR

2. Aqueles pós-aceite são deresponsabilidade do editoradministrativo

3. Editor redatorial ( copyeditor )Responsável pela editoração do paper ( Queries)

DECISÕES DO EDITOR1. Membros do corpo editorial e REVISORES

recomendam

2. Decisão final é do EDITOR

3- Traduzida por uma das 3 palavras :3- Traduzida por uma das 3 palavras :a)Aceitarb)Rejeitarc) ModificarEditor = ???

EDITOR =Aliado?

Mediador??Juiz???

MS = Réu

Revisores = Promotores

Autores = Advogados de defesa

QUE CARTA OU E-MSG CHEGA DA REVISTA?O QUE FAZER?

1. Aceito como tal2. Aceito com pequenas alterações3. Necessárias GRANDES mudanças4. Requerida nova redação4. Requerida nova redação5. Rejeição ou nova resubmissão?6. Rejeição sem apelação

The 3 Golden rules of structuring your response letter!

1- MS ACEITO COMO TAL

• Festa!

• Raro

• 5% dos artigos submetidos a boas

revistas (biologia)

121

818761

98

159

208

110

160

210

No.

Total InternationalTotal Local Local+Internacional

1993141

06/11/2009

Cury JA & Koo H. Extraction and purification of total RNA fromStreptococcus mutans biofilms. Anal Biochem 365(2):208-14, 2007

MEU ÚNICO ACEITO SEM RESTRIÇÕES

3414

52

727

4 59

7887

71

3118

61

36

-40

10

60

76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-2000 2001-05 2006-?

Period

No.

2- MS ACEITO COM PEQUENAS ALTERAÇÕES

• Sortudo!

• Não perca seu tempo ou gaste P i

• Altere e devolva imediatamente o MS

• ...you will probably get a speed acceptance

“Don’t get on your high horse unless you have a deep moat to cro ss.”King Arthur

Ms No.: 200601009Title: Effect of frequency of sucrose exposure on dental bio film compositionand enamel demineralization in the presence of fluoride

Dear Jaime,

Thank you for submitting your above mentioned manuscript to CariesResearch. It has now been evaluated by our Editors and review ers.

We are pleased to inform you that your paper has beenfound suitable for publication, providing you can makefound suitable for publication, providing you can makethe changes and amendments suggested by thereferees .

Both reviewers comment on the English. To my mind this needs relativelylittle revision , but I will send an edited copy by email for your attention. Th emain points that need your attention are to clarify the matte rs which thereviewers found obscure and to expand the discussion in one o r two areas.

Below are remarks which the reviewers have asked us to share w ith you:

3- GRANDES ALTERAÇÕES SÃO NECESSÁRIAS

• Não há razão para desestimulo!

• A grande maioria dos autores recebe esse tipode carta ou uma de rejeição!!

• Portanto se contente por ser essa!!!

• Tenha inteligência emocional!!!!

CONTÉUDO DA CARTA (E-MAIL)

• Carta e duas ou + listas de “reviewers’ comments

“Your manuscript has been reviewed, and it isbeing returned to you with the attachedcomments and suggestions”comments and suggestions”

“We believe that these comments will help youimprove your MS.”

Será publicado se modificado como requerido ou será reconsiderado se as modificações forem feitas!?

-----Mensagem original -----De: [email protected] [mailto:r.p.shellis@bri stol.ac.uk]Enviada em: sexta-feira, 29 de maio de 2009 10:17Para: [email protected]: Ms. No. 200811003, Caries Research

Ms. No.: 200811003Title: Kinetics of MFP hydrolysis in a bacterial test plaque in situ

Dear Livia,

Thank you for submitting the above mentioned manuscript .Thank you for submitting the above mentioned manuscript .

We have now received the comments from the reviewers (see bel ow).Unfortunately, extensive revision of the manuscript is req uired before wecan make a final decision.

Therefore, we ask you to revise your manuscript in accordance with thecomments of the reviewers . Considering the extent of the changes suggested,we reserve the right to subject the revised manuscript for ad ditional peerreview.

Dear Prof. Cury,

Your manuscript #05-0438 "Ca, Pi and F in the fluid of biofilm formed undersucrose" has been reviewed by two expert referees.

While the reviewers feel that this manuscript approaches an interesting topic, theyraise a number of points needing to be addressed . If you can appropriately addressthe various points of the reviewers and Associate Editor, we would be willing toreceive a revised manuscript submission for further review .

Please look to the end of this email for the comments from the referees andPlease look to the end of this email for the comments from the referees andAssociate Editor.

Should you elect to resubmit, your revised manuscript must b e received withinthree months of the date of this letter or it will be considere d withdrawn.Please resubmit your revised manuscript together with a cov er letter detailing on apoint by point basis your response to each of the reviewer com ments andsuggestions . These responses should also be highlighted in one copy of th e text,to be submitted as "supplemental material". You must certify that all co-authors areaware of and are in agreement with the revisions prior to resu bmission.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Prof. Cury,

Your manuscript #05-0438 "Ca, Pi and F in the fluid of biofilm formed undersucrose" has been reviewed by two expert referees.

While the reviewers feel that this manuscript approaches an interesting topic, theyraise a number of points needing to be addressed . If you can appropriately addressthe various points of the reviewers and Associate Editor, we would be willing toreceive a revised manuscript submission for further review .

Please look to the end of this email for the comments from the referees and

Três Regras Ouro Resposta1. Responder TUDO2. Responder EDUCADAMENTEPlease look to the end of this email for the comments from the referees and

Associate Editor.

Should you elect to resubmit, your revised manuscript must b e received withinthree months of the date of this letter or it will be considere d withdrawn.Please resubmit your revised manuscript together with a cov er letter detailing on apoint by point basis your response to each of the reviewer com ments andsuggestions . These responses should also be highlighted in one copy of th e text,to be submitted as "supplemental material". You must certify that all co-authors areaware of and are in agreement with the revisions prior to resu bmission.

Yours sincerely,

2. Responder EDUCADAMENTE3. Responder com EVIDÊNCIA

4- REVISTA EXIGE NOVA (Total) REDAÇÃO

1. Há sugestões para melhorar?

2. Submeta para outra revista!

5- Rejeição ou nova resubmissão?

• “we cannot accept your MS in this currentform, but if you decide to resubmit, then wewould only consider a substantial revision”

• Revista sugere formato de Letter or shortcommunication

Dr R P Shellis Editor-in-Chief of Caries Research Division of Restorative Dentistry Bristol Dental Hospital and School Lower Maudlin Street Bristol BS1 2LY UK

February 6, 2002

Re: Manuscript n o 116/01: Effect of a lactose-containing sweetener on........ ....

Dear Dr Shellis

We reviewed the referred manuscript according to yo ur suggestions as described

below:

1. Considerations by Reviewer #2:

• We agree with the reviewer that the method to steri lize bovine teeth was

not described and this was made in the reviewed man uscript;

• We do not agree with the reviewer that we are not a ware of the potential

risks of transmitting prions or infective agents to the volunteers. The teeth

were maintained in formaldehyde solution for at lea st a month, because it

is the time req uired to sterilize them even against HIV. Particula rly with

prions transmission, meat from Brazilian cattle is exported to Europe,

USA, etc, because there no restriction to its sanit ary quality;

Most of the publication about sterilization of teet h to use them in intra-oral studies has evaluated the effect on enamel, but not in dent ine. Amaechi et al. (1999) have suggested gamma irradiation to sterilize bovine ena mel, but the adverse effect on dentine is unknown. Then we preferred to use formal dehyde. Formaldehyde could interfere with dentine caries development, because it denatures collagen. Denatured collagen could be more resistant to enzymatic break down, however in the sucrose group


February 6, 2002


Dear Dr Shellis


below:



• there was caries development;

• We would like to thank the suggestion made by the reviewer to also

evaluate the recalcification of bovine enamel by sa liva. In fact, in another

research (abst. 1170, Japan IADR meeting, 2001) we found that bovine

enamel surface was not rehardened by human saliva;

• The phrase “In addition, we showed for the first time that lactose is

cariogenic for dentine” was deleted. In addition, t he discussion was

shortened and any consideration to the comments mad e by the reviewer is

not more pertinent.

We would like to thank for the remarks and suggesti ons made , because we are sure

that our manuscript improved at all . However, we respectfully do not agree not described and this was made in the reviewed man uscript;








that our manuscript improved at all . However, we respectfully do not agree

that our research is confirmatory , but we accept that is published as a short

communication . We believe that a short communication in Caries

Research is better than a full paper in another jou rnal.

Looking forward that this revised manuscript can be now considered for publication

in the Caries Research .

Sincerely

Jaime A. Cury


February 6, 2002


Dear Dr Shellis


below:



• there was caries development;

• We would like to thank the suggestion made by the reviewer to also

evaluate the recalcification of bovine enamel by sa liva. In fact, in another

research (abst. 1170, Japan IADR meeting, 2001) we found that bovine

enamel surface was not rehardened by human saliva;

• The phrase “In addition, we showed for the first time that lactose is

cariogenic for dentine” was deleted. In addition, t he discussion was

shortened and any consideration to the comments mad e by the reviewer is

not more pertinent.

We would like to thank for the remarks and suggesti ons made , because we are sure


Aires, Del Bel Cury, Tabchoury, Cury . Caries Res 36 (3) 2002

not described and this was made in the reviewed man uscript;









that our research is confirmatory , but we accept that is published as a short

communication . We believe that a short communication in Caries

Research is better than a full paper in another jou rnal.

Looking forward that this revised manuscript can be now considered for publication

in the Caries Research .

Sincerely

Jaime A. Cury

6- Rejeição sem apelação?

• Carta curta e grossa

• MS não apropriado a revista

• Falhas metodológicas graves de acordo• Falhas metodológicas graves de acordocom os revisores

• Apelar para o editor ou tentar outrarevista?

Dr Brian A. Burt Editor-in-Chief of Community Dentistry and Oral Epi demiology School of Public Health, room 3006 University of Michigan 109 Observatory Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA

March 27, 2002.

Re: Manuscript no. 01/127: “ Estimated intake of flu oride and aluminum from teas............... ” .

Dear Dr. Brian Burt,

We reviewed the referred manuscript according to th e reviewers’ suggestions as

described below: described below:

Considerations by Reviewer #1:

1 We agree that the consumption of tea by young ch ildren r arely occurs in

most countries, considering the tea infusion made f rom the bags. However,

several authors have suggested that soft drinks, be verages and juices are

being consumed in increasing quantities as replacem ent for water (Singer, L

& Ophaug RH, 1979, Levy et al., 1995). Thus, the co nsumption of ready-to -

drink teas may have increased in the last years wor ldwide because of the

industrialization of tea- based beverages, although no data have been

reported about the consumption of tea-based beverag es. However, assuming

the same consumption as for soft drinks, the contri bution would be

considered although other studies should be done co ncerning this subject.

Dr Brian A. Burt Editor-in-Chief of Community Dentistry and Oral Epi demiology School of Public Health, room 3006 University of Michigan 109 Observatory Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA

March 27, 2002.

Re: Manuscript no. 01/127: “ Estimated intake of flu oride and aluminum from teas............... ” .

Dear Dr. Brian Burt,

We reviewed the referred manuscript according to th e reviewers’ suggestions as

described below:


GENERAL: We respectfully do not agree that our

data have only local (Brazilia n) interest. The

consumption of tea- based beverages is

worldwide and in the recent IADR meeting hold

in San Diego, data were showed (abstract 3022) described below:


1 We agree that the consumption of tea by young ch ildren r arely occurs in

most countries, considering the tea infusion made f rom the bags. However,

several authors have suggested that soft drinks, be verages and juices are

being consumed in increasing quantities as replacem ent for water (Singer, L

& Ophaug RH, 1979, Levy et al., 1995). Thus, the co nsumption of ready-to -

drink teas may have increased in the last years wor ldwide because of the

industrialization of tea- based beverages, although no data have been

reported about the consumption of tea-based beverag es. However, assuming

the same consumption as for soft drinks, the contri bution would be

considered although other studies should be done co ncerning this subject.

that several types of iced-tea could provide 2- 3

mg F per day if moderately consumed in USA.

----- Original Message -----From: Prof. Jaime CuryTo: Revista de Saúde PúblicaSent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:24 PMSubject: Re: NOVA PRÉ ANÁLISE - 6048

Prezados editores científicos Profs Carlos Alberto e Rita

Se me permitem contestar a decisão da pré-seleção deste manu scrito, sou deopinião que os dados contribuem sim em termos de saúde publica , pois :opinião que os dados contribuem sim em termos de saúde publica , pois :

1- Não se trata de uma simples analise de fluoreto em arroz e fe ijão sem nenhumarelação a dieta, como dá a entender pelo parecer da pré-análi se feita.2- Além de analisarmos a concentração de F em sementes de arro z e feijão dosprodutos comerciais mais vendidos, também analisamos a con centração noarroz e feijão cozidos com água fluoretada ou não, idéia tota lmente original3- Em acréscimo, determinamos experimentalmente quanto um a criança come dearroz-feijão por refeição e calculamos a dose que ela seria s ubmetida pelaingestão de fluoreto pelo arroz-feijão, portanto avaliamo s sim o impacto de umadieta

4- A comparação com produtos industrializados é valida em ter mosde dieta porque eles são consumidos como tal e assim a partir d asconcentrações de fluoreto encontradas e a quantidade de pro dutoindicado para ser consumido pudemos sim estimar a exposição aflúor de uma dieta destes alimentos .Deste modo, sinceramente o parecer é incoerente com oconteúdo do trabalho e talvez ele não tenha sido escrito com

clareza suficiente para ser entendido , embora eu tenhausado minha língua materna .usado minha língua materna .Sinceramente

Jaime A CuryProf. Titular de BioquímicaFOP-UNICAMPCoordenador do CA-Odontologia, CNPq

----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Augusto Monteiro To: [email protected] Cc: Maria Teresinha Dias Andrade ; Revista de Saúde Pública ; Rita >> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:15 PM Subject: sobre o seu manuscrito (6048/06) submetido à Revista de Saúde Pública Prezado Jaime, li com atenção sua mensagem e os arg umentos que você levantou para justificar sua não concordância com o resultado negativo >> da pré-análise do manuscrito referido acima. Emb ora você não tenha >> pleiteado uma reconsideração da decisão, entende mos que esta >> solicitação estava implícita. De fato, nós da RS P acreditamos que ...>> solicitação estava implícita. De fato, nós da RS P acreditamos que >> solicitações de reconsideração de decisão são es senciais no processo >> de peer review, pois, como qualquer outro proced imento de avaliação, >> ele é sujeito a falhas. Essas falhas são ainda m ais prováveis na >> pré-análise dos manuscritos, uma vez que a mesma é feita por apenas >> uma pessoa (no caso um dos dois Editores Científ icos) e de modo >> bastante rápido, dado o volume de manuscritos qu e a revista recebe >> (cerca de 50 por mês). Relendo seu manuscrito e revendo a >> correspondência que lhe mandamos, constatamos qu e a crítica central >> levantada para interromper a avaliação do manusc rito na etapa da >> pré-análise de fato não se aplicava e, por esta razão, nos >> desculpamos

...

----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Augusto Monteiro To: [email protected] Cc: Maria Teresinha Dias Andrade ; Revista de Saúde Pública ; Rita >> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:15 PM Subject: sobre o seu manuscrito (6048/06) submetido à Revista de Saúde Pública Prezado Jaime, li com atenção sua mensagem e os arg umentos que você levantou para justificar sua não concordância com o resultado negativo >> da pré-análise do manuscrito referido acima. Emb ora você não tenha >> pleiteado uma reconsideração da decisão, entende mos que esta >> solicitação estava implícita. De fato, nós da RS P acreditamos que ...

Esperando que você concorde com o prosseguimento da avaliação domanuscrito e que possamos contar no futuro com novas colaborações do seu grupo de pesquisa, despeço- me com atenção,

Carlos

PS: Não posso deixar de lhe diz er que julguei inadequadas e>> solicitação estava implícita. De fato, nós da RS P acreditamos que

>> solicitações de reconsideração de decisão são es senciais no processo >> de peer review, pois, como qualquer outro proced imento de avaliação, >> ele é sujeito a falhas. Essas falhas são ainda m ais prováveis na >> pré-análise dos manuscritos, uma vez que a mesma é feita por apenas >> uma pessoa (no caso um dos dois Editores Científ icos) e de modo >> bastante rápido, dado o volume de manuscritos qu e a revista recebe >> (cerca de 50 por mês). Relendo seu manuscrito e revendo a >> correspondência que lhe mandamos, constatamos qu e a crítica central >> levantada para interromper a avaliação do manusc rito na etapa da >> pré-análise de fato não se aplicava e, por esta razão, nos >> desculpamos

... julguei inadequadas edesnecessárias as referências feitas nassuas duas mensagens ao fatode você ter usado "sua língua materna" na redação do man uscrito ou quevocê deveria ter talvez ter analisado algum "junk food da vida".

Prezado Prof Carlos Augusto Primeiramente minhas desculpas pela ironia, foram t otalmente inadequadas no contexto da relação editor-autor . Em segundo, obrigado pela chance de poder publicar este artigo nesta revista de repercussão internacional, comprovada pe lo fato que os artigos que já tive a oportunidade de publicar na R ev Saúde Publica são citados no exterior, como tenho constatado consulta ndo o ISI Web of Science. Destaque-se que um dos artigos publicados (Hayacibara et AL 2004) foi citado só por autores não brasileiros e n as revistas DEUTSCHE LEBENSMITTEL-RUNDSCHAU 102 (9): 435-441 SEP 2006; M OLECULAR NUTRITION & FOOD RESEARCH 50 (2): 144-151 FEB 2006 ; TRACE ELEMENTS AND ELECTROLYTES 22 (3): 192-195 2005).

..........................................................

ELEMENTS AND ELECTROLYTES 22 (3): 192-195 2005). Isto me motiva ainda mais a tentar a publicação na Rev Saude Publica, entretanto o MS submetido foi modificado pois eu o re-escrevi em Inglês com o objetivo de submeter a outra revista. Assim, eu aguardo orientações se devo manter este em MS Português ou fazer nova submissão da versão em Inglês. Atenciosamente

Jaime PS: Lamento minha indelicadeza nas duas msg , culpa do meu 50% de origem italiana misturado com 25% do Oriente médio , 12,5% de Português e 12,5% de Índio brasileiro . Preciso me controlar e internet é um risco!!!

..........................................................

Dear Dr. Cury:

The manuscript referred above has been reviewed by two exper ts. The commentsof reviewers are enclosed. According to a journal policy, th e manuscript is notbeing returned.

Unfortunately, the reviewers do not favor the deposition of your manuscript in AEM,and all recommended direct rejection. One of the main concer ns is that the presentstudy does not advance our understanding on dental biofilm. Also this study is

descriptive and no mechanistic analysis is performed. Thus, I have totake the reviewer’s suggestions to reject thistake the reviewer’s suggestions to reject thismanuscript for publication in Applied and EnvironmentalMicrobiology.

I greatly appreciate your interest to publish your research results in Applied andEnvironmental Microbiology.

Sincerely,

Professor Jan Lindhe Department of Periodontology Faculty of Odontology Medicinaregaten 12 413 90 Gothenburg, Sweden

August 24, 2001

Re: Manuscript “ Effect of a mouthrinse containing selected propolis on 3-day dental

plaque accumulation ” (CPE10141).

Dear Dr. Lindhe,

We reviewed the manuscript, according to the reviewers’ suggestions as

described bellow: described bellow:

1- Considerations by reviewer #1:

According to the reviewer, the conclusion (in the A bstract section) is not pertinent because we did not use a positive control in the st udy. Although we did not use chlorhexidine mouthrinse as positive control, we co mpared the plaque reduction level with our previous study using this gold stand ard substance and the same 3-day dental plaque accumulation model. On page 9 of the manuscript, we discussed these data which suggest that chlorhexidine is more efficient than selected- propolis mouthrinse to reduce dental plaque. In addition, we are not suggesting that propolis can be a substitute of chlorhexidine but we are sho wing that a selected propolis mouthrinse could be a promising agent for supraging ival plaque control. Considering the reviewer observation, we are changi ng our conclusion to “An experimental mouthrinse containing selected-propoli s was efficient to reduce supragingival plaque formation even in conditions o f high plaque accumulation.”

2. Considerations by reviewer #2

a) The first consideration made regarded the 3- day period to evaluate plaque

accumulation. According to the reviewer, the time chosen probably derives

from the classical 5- day plaque accumulation model developed by Addy et al.

(J. Clin. Periodontol. 10:89-99, 1983). In the cited paper, the authors do not

suggest a 5-day time but a 4-day period , and the study was performed in two

parts. In the first part the authors evaluated the effect of time on plaque

accumulation for 16 to 72 h using the G ingival Margin Plaque Index, with the

objective to show the limitations of this index and the use of a short time

period to evaluate the effect of substances on plaq ue formation. In the

second part of this study, when the authors tested a new methodology, they

selected only the 96 h period to evaluate plaque fo rmation using the method

of Greene & Vermillion. Thus, in our opinion, the authors did not present d ata

to support the choice of 4 days , because the previous evaluation was made

for 72 h and using a different method to score dent al plaque. In addition , the

authors showed evidence that the evaluation time of 16-24 h may give

misleading results, suggesting a 48 h- period or beyond. The data suggested

that the evaluation time should be at least 48 h an d no t exactly 96h.

Furthermore , in our previous study (Del Bel Cury et al., 1994) we evaluated

the effect of an experimental mouthrinse containing chlorhexidine in dental

plaque accumulation for 72 h. We found a 74.2% of d ental plaque reduction in

comparison w ith the placebo. This result was very similar to th e 79.6%

reduction found by Waller & Rolla (Scand. J. Dent. Res. 1982; 90:131- 3) using

a 4-day period for plaque formation. Also , it should be mentioned that we

enhance dental plaque formation using sucrose to decrease the subjectivity

with respect to score 0-1.

CARTA RESPOSTA (não se INTIMIDE ,...e, mas...)

1. Responda a todos os comentáriosfeitos (sendo grato as sugestões pertinentesmas contestando as indevidas)

2. Responda educadamente (contra-argumente sem agressividade)

3. Responda convincentemente (contra-argumente com ‘provas’)

----- Original Message -----From: Jaime CuryTo:Cc: JaimeFOP ; [email protected] ; Ynara Lima ; Dani el FernandesSent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 11:18 AMSubject: Re: MAN. 6048 Decisão.]

Prezada Profa MFoi com enorme satisfação que recebemos esta 1a. avaliação d o MS 6048submetido a publicação na prestigiosa revista da Fac de Saúd e .........e estoutentando responder os questionamentos feitos pelos reviso res e as suasconsiderações :considerações :REVISOR 1:a) Concordo com o revisor que o M&M está muito subdividido pod endo contribuirpara a sua não clareza. Revi, mas não encontrei outra alterna tiva pois forma feitasvarias analises e necessariamente elas tiveram que ser sepa radas.b) Também revi a discussão quanto a mesma não ser uma repetiçã o dos resultadose não me parece que este foi o caso. Os resultados forma discut idos frente aliteratura e assim sendo os valores das concentrações foram 'reapresentados' paramaior clareza das comparações.c) Não entendi o comentário com relação aos pontos de interro gação queapareceram no texto usado pelo revisor, pois no meu eles não a parecem

d) Concordo com o revisor quanto a pertinência de explicitar as marcas comerciais dos produtosanalisados. As substitui por letras e justifiquei no M&M e em acréscimo por experiência anterior seique a política editorial da Rev ..... é contra o aparecimento de nomes comerciaisGrato pelas sugestõesREVISOR 2Obrigado pelos comentáriosREVISOR 3a) Sinceramente não concordo que a amostragem seja pequena e m número porque ela é representativados produtos mais consumidos, particularmente as marcas de arroz e feijãob) Concordo com a sugestão quanto ao objetivo do estudo, fiz a alteraçãoc) Obrigado pela correção do abstractd) Acrescentei na introdução comentários sobre a importânc ia do fluoreto em termos de saúde publicae dos seus riscos além da fluorose dental. Como refe acrescen tei publicação feita na prestigiosa BritishMedical Journal .Medical Journal .e) Sinceramente não concordo que a discussão apresenta 'mui ta informação nova ao leitor'. Os 2parágrafos iniciais foram usados como introdutórios a disc ussão, mas são pertinentes ao assunto.Também não concordo que o colocado na discussão poderia esta r em resultados, pois foi feita umacomparação com dados da literatura e portanto me parece que e stá no local mais apropriado.EDITORA EXECUTIVAa) Acredito que o MS segue a clássica estrutura IMRD ou não ent endi o comentáriob) A refe 1 foi excluída

Esperando ansiosamente que este MS esteja agora adequado pa ra ser publicado pela Rev SaúdePublica, despeço-me em nome dos demais autores a disposição para outros esclarecimentos.JaimePS: Atachado estão 2 arquivos, um com as alterações feitas ma ntidas no texto e outro já incorporadas

.........................

Dr. R. P. Shellis Editor-in-Chief of Caries Research Division of Restorative Dentistry Department of Oral and Dental Science University of Bristol Dental School Lower Maudlin Street Bristol BS1 2LY UK Refe: MS 200807015

January 12, 2009 .

Dear Dr Shellis

We are grateful for the comments and suggestions do ne by yourself and both

Reviewers, because we could further improve the man uscript. Below we have

discussed the points raised by all of you and the c hanges in the text.

EDITOR COMMENTS: EDITOR COMMENTS:

“The reviewers have made a number of substantive comments that req uire your

attention. The utility of the results seems to be l imited by the very short- term

model used and there clearly seems to be a need to justify the methodology and

explain more carefully your aim and choice of conditions. For instance, it is

unclear, as Reviewer 2 says, why the plaque was not exposed directly to

dentifrice slurry. The work of Vogel and Ekstrand s uggests that plaque would

take up large amounts of fluoride from high-concent ration preparations.”

Thanks for this remark. We added information in the revised text to justify the use of this model to test the conditions proposed. As for the suggestion of Reviewer 2 of exposing the plaque directly to the dentifrice slur ry, below we explained the practical reasons why we didn’t do that. In our vie w, a more thorough exposure would also include artificiality to the study and c ould have been criticized, given that the results favours the F held in plaque after dentifrice use. After a series of tests we chose to ask volunteers to brush with the dentifrice, spit out the foam and insert the appliance in the mouth without


January 12, 2009 .

Dear Dr Shellis




EDITOR COMMENTS:

rinsing. In our opinion, this procedure is more realistic th an to immerse the test

plaque in the dentifrice slurry.

1. “Abstract and thr oughout. I think 'diffusion to plaque' is very misl eading as it

implies some quiescent system (which might account for Reviewer 1's problem

with this phrase). I think 'uptake of F by plaque' (from dentifrice slurry) would be

better. During toothbrushing, d entifrice is moving vigorously within the mouth

and, while penetration into plaque is diffusion- controlled, the fluoride is

transported to the plaque very efficiently.”

We agree with this point and made the necessary cha nges in the text.

2. “I agree with Re viewer 1's comments about the use of the term CaF2 (even

though you define it). To avoid the problem altoget her, I suggest you use the

term KOH-(or alkali-)soluble fluoride. This could b e abbreviated to ASF.”

Thanks for the suggestion. We agree that the t erm alkali -soluble F would be very EDITOR COMMENTS:









Thanks for the suggestion. We agree that the t erm alkali -soluble F would be very

precise, but we opted to change to CaF 2-like material, as suggested by Reviewer

2, as a way of facilitating index searching. Altern atively, “CaF 2” (within quotation

marks) could also be used.

3. “Use italics for Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans). See Guidelines.”

Sorry for this fault, we changed accordingly.

4. “Abstract should be one paragraph and the subheadin gs can be removed.”

We changed the abstract as suggested.

5. “p. 4. You do not say why you compared dentifrices with d ifferent F

concentrations. Presumably you needed a dose-effect to test the hypotheses.”

Yes, we used dentifrices with different concentrati ons in order to support the

effect observed for the factors under study, i.e. F in plaque and forme d on

enamel. We added information on that in the text.


January 12, 2009 .

Dear Dr Shellis




EDITOR COMMENTS:














1. “p. 4- 5. The description of the experiments is hard to fo llow (although Fig. 1

helps). I think the reason is that you describe the two together and it is not clear

which features belong to one experiment and which t o both. I suggest naming

the experiments with brief titles (use of the title s will make for concision later

on) and describe them in separate paragraphs on p. 5, with a following

paragraph beginning 'In both experiments ...' to de scribe the in situ test.”

Thanks for this suggestion. We found it very difficult to clearly describe the way

the experiments were conducted, and we agree the description could be further

improved. Changes were made following your suggesti on.

2. “p. 8. Statistics. You do not describe the tests used for normality and uniformity

of variance. Nor do you state which pairwise tests were used after the anova.

Although 'split- plot' is historically correct to describe this anov a model, the

more usual term these days is 'nested' unless the e xperiment is agricultural.”

Information was added on the statistical section. We clarified the information on EDITOR COMMENTS:






















the tests used for normality and homocedasticity. T hey were both checked by

the SAS/LAB package of SAS, which suggests the best transformation in or der

to fit the assumptions. The package uses the a chi- square test to measure the

degree of non- constant variance of the residual response values r elative to the

predicted response values, and automatically sugges ts a transformation. The

procedure is based on the Box- Cox method, as described in the cited reference

(Box et al, 1978).

As for the split-plot test used, we opted to mainta in this term since “ nested

design” could refer to an experimental model that i s slightly different from that

used by us, as described by Montgomery (Montgomery DC. Design and analysis

of experiments. 6 th ed, John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

3. “ p. 9. The data in Table 1 can be transferred easily to the text and the table

deleted.”

Table 1 was deleted.


January 12, 2009 .

Dear Dr Shellis




EDITOR COMMENTS:














1. “p. 4- 5. The description of the experiments is hard to fo llow (although Fig. 1

helps). I think the reason is that you describe the two together and it is not clear

which features belong to one experiment and which t o both. I suggest naming

the experiments with brief titles (use of the title s will make for concision later

on) and describe them in separate paragraphs on p. 5, with a following

paragraph beginning 'In both experiments ...' to de scribe the in situ test.”

Thanks for this suggestion. We found it very difficult to clearly describe the way

the experiments were conducted, and we agree the description could be further

improved. Changes were made following your suggesti on.

2. “p. 8. Statistics. You do not describe the tests used for normality and uniformity

of variance. Nor do you state which pairwise tests were used after the anova.

Although 'split- plot' is historically correct to describe this anov a model, the

more usual term these days is 'nested' unless the e xperiment is agricultural.”

Information was added on the statistical section. We clarified the information on

agree with your opinion that the deposition of labi le F on enamel that is frequently being cleaned is irrelevant, since plaque is necess ary for caries development. However, we should clearly separate the effect of a n intensive preventive program (Axelsson), which includes not only plaque removal, but also education in self care with F dentifrices, and the use of F dentifrices as a regular practice of common life. We agree that only persistent plaque is cariogenic (and our results show that persistent plaque is the target of the F in dentifr ice!), but on a daily basis the effectiveness of plaque control by habitual brushin g is limited (‘Everybody brush the teeth but very few clean them ’ or ‘If people cleaned the teeth perfectly we would EDITOR COMMENTS:






















the tests used for normality and homocedasticity. T hey were both checked by

the SAS/LAB package of SAS, which suggests the best transformation in or der

to fit the assumptions. The package uses the a chi- square test to measure the

degree of non- constant variance of the residual response values r elative to the

predicted response values, and automatically sugges ts a transformation. The

procedure is based on the Box- Cox method, as described in the cited reference

(Box et al, 1978).

As for the split-plot test used, we opted to mainta in this term since “ nested

design” could refer to an experimental model that i s slightly different from that

used by us, as described by Montgomery (Montgomery DC. Design and analysis

of experiments. 6 th ed, John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

3. “ p. 9. The data in Table 1 can be transferred easily to the text and the table

deleted.”

Table 1 was deleted.

the teeth but very few clean them ’ or ‘If people cleaned the teeth perfectly we would never have caries or even gingivitis’). In other wo rds, we should assume that F dentifrice is effective against caries because it a ssociates plaque removal with the enrichment of remaining plaque with F! However, it was not known if a thorough tooth cleaning (with formation of CaF 2-like material on the tooth surface) would be relevant if it is followed by a period of careless brushing – our results suggest it is not. But the discussion could even move forward: wh at if the tooth surface was already partially demineralised – formation of CaF 2-like material is higher in such areas, and thus its effect could be greater.

REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS:

1. “This is a carefully planned and interesting study. However, I don’ t think that

the findings are unexpected. I have never understo od the number of

publications concerning the purported role of CaF2 and CaF2- like materials in

the anticaries effect of fluoride delivered from co nventional oral hygiene

products such as dentifrices and mouthrinses. This is another study that

appears to confirm the unimportance of such substan ces in this context .”

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree th at the relevance of CaF 2-

like material deposited on teeth from dentifrices and mouthrinses is very limited. like material deposited on teeth from dentifrices and mouthrinses is very limited.

And in this way, our results give support to the ma jor role of F enrichment of

remaining plaque. Respectfully, we believe that our data are

original because we did not know another study that

evaluated the importance of CaF 2-like compounds

formed by dentifrice on enamel demineralization

under conditions close to in vivo.

1. “p8, para 2: How can the authors justify referring to their SH m easure as enamel

demineralization? If subsurface demin occurred, SH may not change. I n

contrast, SH could change in the absence of demin b ecause there are surface

deposits of different composition and/or structure than the underlying enamel.

What is the hardness of the ‘CaF2-like material’?”

Thanks for this comment. We kindly disagree with the reviewer’s remark that subsurface demineralization could occur even w ithout a change in SH. The first effect of mineral loss on enamel is sur face softening, which is SH. The first effect of mineral loss on enamel is sur face softening, which is followed by subsurface demineralization if the cari ogenic challenge is maintained; mineral is lost from the subsurface area through di ssolution “pores” initially formed on enamel surface. For the very early changes in en amel surface, SH has been shown to be a sensitive and reproducible method to evaluate in situ demineralization or remineralization (discussed by Zero, 1995).

1. “Page 13: The observation that there was “ no significant effect of sugar

diffusion changing enamel demineralization as a fun ction of plaque thickness ”

raises concerns about the use to this particular in situ model given the study

design. Previous studies with this particular in si tu mod el have shown

decreased demineralization with increased plaque th ickness [Zero, 1995; Cury et

al., 2003]. It is highly likely that this discrepan cy is due to wash out of the S.

mutans test plaque from the plastic holder during t he 75 minute experimental

period effectively reducing the thickness of the plaq ue. While this does not

invalidate the main conclusions, it does need to be discussed.”

Thanks for this comment and the opportunity to disc uss this point. The

concerns of the reviewer are legitimate given that the experimental model is concerns of the reviewer are legitimate given that the experimental model is

really very sensitive to the wash out of the test plaque. In this regard, we usually

repeat the experimental phases in those volunteers presenting a loss of the S.

mutans plaque. Howeve r, the results found in the present stu dy for the F

dentifrices have also been observed in other studies when F was used in the

model (Tenuta et al., J Dent 2005 (33): 491- 7; Tenuta et al., J Dent Res 2008

(where the data of hardness up to 1,000 µm was aver aged) and unpublished

studies). We thus don’t think the results are a mere artefact of plaque loss, but

actually a real tendency of the inhibition of miner al loss when F is used in the

model.

SOME USEFUL PHRASES TO BEGIN YOUR REPLIES TO CRITICAL COMMENTS

• We agree with the referee that____, but....

• The referee is right to point out____, yet...

• In accordance with the referees’ wishes, we have now• In accordance with the referees’ wishes, we have nowchanged this sentence to ....

• Although we agree with the referee that ...

• It is true that ____, but....

SOME USEFUL PHRASES TO BEGIN YOUR REPLIES TO CRITICAL COMMENTS

•We acknowledge that our manuscript might havebeen____, but

• We, too, were disappointed with the low response rate

• We agree that this is important area that requiresfurther research

•We support the referee’s assertion that___, athough..

• With all due respect to the reviewer, we believe thatthis point is not correct

Dr. Mark C. Herzberg, DDS, PhD Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Dental Research University of Minnesota - School of Dentistry 17-164 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware St, SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA

April 22, 2003

Re: Manuscript #02-386: “In situ Effect of Frequen t Sucrose Exposure on Enamel Demineralization and on Plaque Composition after AP F application and F- dentifrice use”

Dear Dr. Herzberg,

We have reviewed the manuscript referred according to the reviewers’ suggestions

as described below:

General considera tions: General considera tions:

Before answering point a point the comments made by the reviewers, we would like

to clarify that:

a) The aim of our study was to evaluate if the combina tion of APF application

and the use of F- dentifrice would show additive effect on enamel

demineraliz ation because there is no consensus in the literatu re about this

subject. Furthermore, there is no data in the liter ature about dental plaque

composition formed in this condition.

b) We are not refuting existing knowledge about APF ef fect on reduction of

enamel demineralization, which is well known. However, to evaluate a

possible synergistic effect, treatment groups of ei ther APF application or F -

dentifrice alone were considered in the experimental design made. In fact, the

isolated clinical effect of APF application and F- dentifrice on reduction of

enamel demineralization was confirmed experimentall y by our findings.

The data are not in disagreement with regard to the effect of APF application used alone, but


1. The “big” objection made was that fluoride and part icularly

high-fluoride treatments are mainly e ffective in already

existing carious lesions .

Theoretically, we agree with the reviewer considering that:

(i) Demineralized enamel takes up more fluoride tha n sound;

(ii) Calcium fluoride products formed in the caries lesions

act as fluoride reservoirs and (iii) Fluoride released may

enhance enamel remineralization in the caries lesio ns and

arrest dental caries. However, these sound assumptions are

not supported experimentally. Furthermore , we have not supported experimentally. Furthermore , we have

conducted two recent studies using enamel with pref ormed

lesions (please see references Maia et al . and Paes Leme et

al. in the revised version) and we were not able to s how

additive effect of the combination of APF plus F- dentifrice.

Furthermore, Lagerweij and ten Cate ( Caries Res 36:270-4,

2002) did not find sta tistical significant difference in

remineralization when demineralized enamel specimen s

were treated in situ with F-toothpaste+F- gel in comparison

with F-dentifrice alone, either.

1. According to the reviewer our data contradict clini cal findings as those cit ed by

him .

We respectfully do not agree with the reviewer and in our opinion one of the

references is in accordance with our data and the o ther one presents

confounding variables to affirm that there is addit ive anticaries effect when

professional fluorid e application is combined with the daily use of F t oothpaste.

Thus:

a) In fact , the study of Sousa et al . (Int Dent J 52:315-20, 2002) did not show any

additive anticaries effect when APF and fluoride mouthrinse were used in

combination. Furthermore , there i s a problem in the experimental design of

this study to evaluate additive effect, because Gro up 1 of children received

fluoride mouthrinse and Group 2 received the mouthr inse plus APF, but there fluoride mouthrinse and Group 2 received the mouthr inse plus APF, but there

was not a group submitted only to APF application.

b) The other study cited by the reviewer (Madlena et al. , Caries Res 2002;36:142 -

6) was properly designed to evaluate additive anticaries effect when F- gel

and F-dentifrice were used. The caries reduction by the treatment F-gel+F -

dentifrice was 12.5% higher than the treatment with F-dentifrice alone.

However, while the group treated with F-gel+F- dentifrice showed a

statistically significant reduction in VPI (visible plaque index) in comparison

with the baseline values after 2 years, the reduction in the group using only F -

dentifrice was not statistically significant. Thus, this confounding factor

should be considered mainly by the fact that the di fference of caries

reduction was modest .

1. Considering the studies discussed above, we respect fully do not agree with the

reviewer that we should include an extra group with caries lesions before

publishing our data, because the findings were cons istent when evaluated by

different dependent variables. Although our data us ing sound enamel suggest

that the combination of APF application and F- dentifrice use does not show

additive effect reducing enamel demineralization, w e do not know if it would be

effective in enhancing enamel remineralization and arresting caries. However,

although our two in vitro studies and that in situ by Lage rweij and ten Cate

(2002) using enamel with caries lesions do not give support to conduct an in situ

study, we are considering the possibility to conduc t another study to evaluate

this different approach. This would be relevant bec ause in the experimental

design used by Lagerweij and ten Cate a treatment g roup submitted to APF

alone was not considered. Thus, we are grateful to the reviewer for the

suggestion in this direction.

2. Furthermore, according to the reviewer, fluoride to pical applications are only

indicated in high risk groups. We agree with him and the experimental design

used tried to simulate this condition because denta l plaque was not disturbed

during 14 days and a sugar exposure of high frequen cy was used .

Efeito da Combinação de Uso de Dentifrício Fluoretado e Aplicação Tópica Profissional de Flúor na Composição do

Biofilme Dental e na Desmineralização do Esmalte frente a Alta Frequencia de Exposição a Sacarose in situ

TRATAMENTOS PERDA MINERAL

CONTROLE 1108,0

ATF 697,5

% Dif.

-

40

60

ug F/g Biofilme

1.5

*7.2

46.6

Paes Leme et al., J Dent Res 83 (1) 2004

Mestrado em Cariologia, FOP-UNICAMP

•In conclusion, the data suggest that the combination of a single application of APFgel followed by the daily use of F-dentifrice ** NÃO REDUZ A DESMINERALIZAÇÃO

DO ESMALTE nor changes dental plaque composition in comparison with the use of eitherAPF application or F-dentifrice alone.

DF

ATF + DF

410,0

417,4

60

60

46.6

43.8

*14 days

**Tandy (1100 ppm F )

CH Ferm.$Sacarose

Ácidos

pH neutroProteínas

++MudançasAmbientais

e na Matriz doBiofilme

S. sanguis S. oralis

↓↓↓↓ PorosidadeRemineralização

++MudançasEcológicas

e na Estrutura do

Biofilme

#Adaptado de Marsh, 1994

#FORMAÇÃO do BIOFILME DENTAL CARIOGENICO

Ácidos+

+PEC pH baixoPolissacarídeosExtracelulares

E. mutansLactobacillus sp.

↑↑↑↑ Porosidade*

DESmineralizaçãoAumentada

+PEC = Polissacarídeos extracelulares *Dibdin & Shellis, 1988**Cury et al., 1997

$Paes Leme et al ., J Dent Res 85(10) 2006 ( Crit Review )

++Paes Leme et al. J Dent Res 83(1), 2004 ; Pecharki et al., Caries Res 39(2), 2005 ; Ribeiro et al., Brit J Nut 94(1),2005; Tenuta et al., Caries Res 40(6), 2006 ; Ccahuana-Vásquez et al. Caries Res 41(1), 2007; Vale GC et al . CariesRes 41(5)2007; Aires etal ., Caries Res 42(5), 2008;.....

PG-Odontologia , Área de Cariologia, FOP-UNICAMP (CAPES Nota 7)

CONCLUSÕES1. Revisores são HUMANOS2. O segredo de uma resubmissão é fazer os

revisores se sentirem valorizados semcomprometer seus proprios valores

3. Facilite a vida dos revisores e editoresapresentando um carta-resposta numerada eestruturadaestruturada

4. Siga as 3 regras ouro5. Muitos editores e revisores preferem não ter

outra sessão de re-resubmissão6. Like a good marriage, resubimitting your

manuscript in light of your referees’ comments isa process of GIVE & TAKE

Williams HC. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83

REGRAS de COMPORTAMENTO em CIÊNCIA

1- Os assuntos é que estão em discussão , não aspessoas

2- A questão não é quem está certo , mas sim o que écerto

3- O debate deve ser construtivo3- O debate deve ser construtivo

4- Atividade científica é guiada para produção depapers

5- Motivação pessoal e interação são fatores fundamentais do sucesso

6- Reconhecimento é o mais importante fator motivacional ÉTICA!

publicação de artigos científicos e a postura dos autores ... ão de...

Documents