标题： 动作电位传播中的表面波和轴质压力波：根本不同的物理现象还是同一枚硬币的两面？ 显示英文标题

标题： Surface waves and axoplasmic pressure waves in action potential propagation: fundamentally different physics or two sides of the same coin?

摘要： 我们认为El Hady和Machta的“表面波”模型描述了与Rvachev先前引入的“轴质压力波”模型相同的潜在过程。 备注。 我们，作者，联系了A. El Hady和B. Machta，以征求他们对我们在此提出的想法的评论。他们建议我们“向《自然·通讯》提交一封‘ Matters Arising’信件，到时候他们会要求我们作出回应。” 《自然·通讯》最终拒绝了我们的手稿，理由是： “……我们考虑‘ Matters Arising’的主要标准是该文章提供有趣且及时的对《自然·通讯》发表文章的科学批评和澄清的程度。在当前情况下，虽然我们感谢您对社区的兴趣，但我们认为您的评论并未达到在《自然·通讯》上发表所需的程度，即未能推进或澄清相关文章的理解。” 我们根据期刊的投稿指南在网上发布了提交版本，该指南指出： “被拒稿的作者被鼓励在期刊网站和/或适当的预印本服务器上以在线评论的形式发布他们的稿件。” 显示英文摘要

摘要： We argue that El Hady and Machta's "surface wave" model describes the same underlying process as the "axoplasmic pressure wave" model introduced earlier by Rvachev. Note. We, the authors, contacted A. El Hady and B. Machta for comment on the ideas presented herein. They suggested that we "submit a Matters Arising Letter to Nature Communications and we will be asked to respond in due time." Nature Communications ultimately rejected the manuscript, citing: "... Our main criterion for consideration of Matters Arising is the degree to which the piece provides interesting and timely scientific criticism and clarification of a Nature Communications publication. In the present case, while we appreciate the interest of your comments to the community, we do not feel that they advance or clarify understanding of the article in question to the extent required for publication in Nature Communications." We are posting the submitted version online in accordance with the journal's submission guidelines, which state: "Authors who have had a submission declined are encouraged to post it as an online comment to the paper concerned at the journal's website and/or on an appropriate preprint server."