SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧
一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？
第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。
第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。
上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。
写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不
同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面举例说明各部分的写法和格式。
编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。
审稿人1：
意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。
意见2：算法表述不明确。
意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。
审稿人2：
意见1：图2太小。
意见2：第3页有个错别字。
很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿人意见1之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对1.1采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：
List of Actions
LOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.
LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.
LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ***.
LOA4: Explanations of the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.
LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.
LOA6: All typos have been removed.
==================分页=======================
Responses to Editor
请在修改稿中用双倍行距。
We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.
==================分页=======================
Responses to Reviewers
To Reviewer 1:
意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。
Thank you for pointing this out. A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our w ork is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.
“blablablabla(此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区别之处)”
意见2：算法表述不明确。
We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm ***, see LOA3. “blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”
意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。
We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3. “blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”
==================分页=======================
To Reviewer 2:
意见1：图2太小。
We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.
意见2：第3页有个错别字。
We have removed all typos, see LOA5.
==================分页=======================
总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。
来源：pitlord999@小木虫
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(1)
1.所有问题必须逐条回答。
2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。
3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。
4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。
以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。
续两点经验：
1，最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；
2，绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想该投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。
以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。
我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。
自我感觉总结（不一定对）：
1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；
2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息；
3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；
4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。
欢迎大家批评指正。
我常用的回复格式，呵呵。
Dear reviewer:
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below. 1）
2）
....
引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。只要自己是正确的就要坚持。在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！
我得回复格式是这样的：
Dear Professor xx:
Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the refer ees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript. in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed. A revised manuscript. with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.
然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。结果修改一次就接收了：）我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript. in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript. to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments. Part A (Reviewer 1). The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Part B(Reviewer 2)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
***
[精华]如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(2)
一个回复的例子(已接收)
Major comments:
1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest.
2. In fig1Cplease specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol.
3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography.
4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.
5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.
Minor comments:
1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion, which need correction.
a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"
b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods.
2. It would be preferable to combine figure1Aand B, in order to confirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control (HT1080).
Answer to referee 1 comment:
1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.
2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig1Cwas Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.
3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell
conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.
4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 inspontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.
5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.
Minor comments:
1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.
2.Since the results in figure1Aand B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.
这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！
Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172
Comment:
Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?
Reply:
The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
What is the sample size for all tests performed?
Reply:
The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about0.1mmand a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.
Reply:
Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript. as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.
Reply:
Done accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.
Reply:
Although not too much difference was seen, the conc lusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis. Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript. to address the statistical analysis for the data.
Comment (continued):
Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise? Reply:
Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 33cm2 with a slightly different thickness.Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manuscript. aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform. release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).
Reply:
Corrected accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?
Reply:
Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable. Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
SCI生物医学英文论文发表成功经验发表成功经验
SCI生物医学英文论文发表成功经验共享系列一---（Clinical Chemistry）
将自己近10年的科研工作中有关论文整理总结发表方面的一些信息贡献出来，与大家共享！如有时间，我拟将一些已经发表的文章，按照撰写与发表的实际经历与过程，即通过案例分析每一个杂志的特色，审稿偏好，review意见及答复要点等逐一分析。可能包含的杂志系列有：nature methods，clinical chemistry，analytical chemistry，J. Clin. Immuno，Biomed. Microdev，Front. Biosci，Mol. Cell. Biochem，J. Expert，Rev. Proteomics，J biochemistry 等。
本章先讲解美国Clinical Chemistry杂志，一个临床化学界的王牌杂志，近年其影响因子逐年攀升，现为7.7分。Clinical Chemistry由美国AACC每月出版，接受的文章包括与人体疾病相关的实验室研究，分析与分子诊断，仪器，资料处理，数据分析，临床研究等投稿。ISSN：0009-9147网络版ISSN：1530-8561
【URL】https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/
【镜像URL】https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/
【出版者】American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC)
【收费情况】免费,全文
【内容简介】
Clinical Chemistry is an international journal of laboratory medicine and molecular diagnostics.Clinical Chemistry -- This highly respected and often-cited scientific journal is published monthly and contains peer-reviewed methodology, research papers and other articles relevant to clinical chemistry and related laboratory sciences. Its circulation is more than 15,000.David E. Bruns, MD, Editor, (Charlottesville Office)
dbruns@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
Sandra Weaver, Senior Editorial Assistant
sweaver@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
Donna Brandl, Editorial Assistant
dbrandl@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
Shane P. Cyr, Editorial Assistant
scyr@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
Mac Fancher, Publisher, (WashingtonOffice)
mfancher@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
Miriam Gonzalez, Publications Coordinator
mgonzalez@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
【目录、摘要或全文上网等情况】
Free TOC, 1965 -
Free Abstract, 1975 -
Free Fulltext, 1997 -1999
Fulltext, 1997 -
【杂志被索引的情况】
Indexed in Chemical Abstracts.
【备注】
For faster access to Clinical Chemistry Online from these countries use this URL:
https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico,Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, The Netherlands, UK该杂志是由美国临床化学协会（American Association for Clinical Chemistry，AACC）主办的，于1948年成立，总部位于华盛顿，拥有1万余会员。先在网站注册，登记，按照提示一步步提供文章名称，摘要，作者姓名，所属领域，关键词，主文，图表等等。转换为PDF后就可以提交，然后给你一个查询号，接着就是等待了。。。
等了20多天，查阅状态看到了第一次回信：
Home Author Area Reviewer Area Personal Info. ClinChem Home Sign Out Submit New Manuscript. Information for Authors Queue Summary Feedback Help FAQ
Decision Letter
[Return to Queue]
To:作者姓名（电子邮件）
From: clinchemed@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,
Subject: Clinical Chemistry -- Manuscript. Decision
Cc:
RE: Clinical Chemistry MS ID# CLINCHEM/2002/036332
TITLE:
Dear Dr. xxx:
Your manuscript. has been examined by two expert reviewers. Please visit https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html, to view their comments. For the reasons detailed in these comments, we cannot accept this manuscript. for publication in Clinical Chemistry in this form. Also, your Reference 28 is not formatted properly. Our Information for Authors will offer assistance with journal style; it can be found athttps://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/ccj/infoauth.stmWe would consider a revised version that takes these criticisms into account. If you should resubmit the paper I would also ask that you have several English speaking colleagues proof the paper for grammar and composition. Additionally, be sure to provide a detailed point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers. Failure to do so will delay consideration of the revised manuscript.Prior to publication we require copyright releases signed by all authors. Our Authors Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must sign both sections of the form. (a signature on the lower section means that all conflicts of interest have been disclosed even if there are none). Send the completed form. to us by FAX (434-979-7599).
Sincerely,
Dr. xxx nesley
Associate Editor
P.S. You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit a Revision" queue at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,. Please do not begin the submission of your revised manuscript. until you are ready to submit the entire manuscript. A checklist regarding requirements for submission can be found athttps://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/ccj/manuscript_check02.pdf. Figures must be uploaded as Image Files in .tif or .eps files at 600 DPI. Alternatively, you may use PowerPoint software for figures but fonts must be embedded and only one image per slide, one slide per file. When
uploading the revised version, please be sure to include in the "Response to Reviews" field a point-by-point list of all changes made, or your rebuttal, in response to each of the reviewers?
suggestions.
P.P.S. Please note that if your manuscript. has color figures, the authors are expected to bear the cost of printing them, except in the case of invited papers. The charges for these figures are $1500 for the first color figure or part of a figure, and $500 for each additional color figure or part of a figure. Authors will be billed for color publication costs unless they request that their figures be printed in black and white.
该杂志一般为2个审稿人，审稿过程也较严格，都是本领域的大牛。后来我还有幸在一次会议上认识到一个当年的审稿人，但不知道是1还是2，呵呵！一般总是先鼓励一段话，不写了。。。
下面问题就来了，共12个，有些很好回答，一句话就可以解释清楚，有些就比较麻烦。还是举例说明把
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1）实验的有效性和深度（at least for a few substances of major importance
detection limits, cut-off values and specificity should have been
studied. Also the description of the assay principle is not quite
clear）
没办法，只有一条路，补充相关实验，然后再投。
2）语言问题（The English text would have to be substantially improved）
虽然这是一个美国杂志，但对语言的要求一点都不弱，投之前还是忽略了，没办法，慢慢修改。
3）核心的技术问题（A cut-off value is given for MOL but the dimension is missing. In the discussion various anecdotic reports are given for which no data are presented under results.）重新验证讨论。本来认为很快就可以接受了，没想到却又等了一个半月（中间发过一次信件询问）才收到回信。原来除了上次2个评委，这次又增加了一个独立审稿人。。。
原文如下：
Your revised manuscript. has been examined by the original two reviewers, plus a
recommended third reviewer with special expertise in this area. Please visit https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html, to retrieve their comments. The three reviewers find merit in the work, but have numerous constructive suggestions（别害怕，其实就是几个小问题）. Please consider these suggestions carefully and prepare an improved version that addresses these concerns. I have also noted that there are several color figures included in the paper, which seem to be useful only in color. Please be aware that (should your paper be accepted for publication) authors are expected to pay the costs for publication of color figures. The charge for the first color figure is $1500; subsequent figures, or parts of figures, are $500 each. Of course, if you wish to submit alternate figures in black and white (or grayscale), you may do so.
Sincerely,
Dr. xxx
Associate Editor
P.S. You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit a Revision" queue at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,. A checklist of requirements for submission can be found at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/ccj/manuscript_check02.pdf. When uploading the revised version, please be sure to include in the "Response to Reviews" field a point-by-point list of all changes made, or your rebuttal, in response to each of the reviewer suggestions. Also, please submit copyright releases for all authors. Our Authors' Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must sign both sections of the form. Send the completed form. to us by FAX (434-979-7599).P.P.S. For figures, please submit .tif files that have a minimum resolution of 600 DPI; the width and height of the Pixels should be about 4200 x 4200. Alternatively, you may use PowerPoint for figures, but each .ppt file may contain only one slide and fonts must be embedded.
总之一句话，还是需要再次修改。
又等了接近1个月时间，幸亏不是学生赶毕业，最终被接收了。
Thank you for your revised manuscript. It is acceptable and will be processed for publication. Please note that I edited the paper to remove all text related to Figure 6. The structures of the drugs are available to anyone who wants to look them up. Thus this figure will not be in the proofs that you receive.
如果proof快的话，这个杂志一般会安排在2-3个月后发表。
If page proofs are returned promptly, your paper is scheduled to appear in the Oct issue.之前电子版会先在网上发布Papers in press are posted online 2-6 weeks before the issue
date. Issues are scheduled to be mailed to subscribers and appear on the Internet before the first day of the issue month. The electronic version (https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,) is published at Stanford University's HighWire Press, where your article will be linked electronically to and from PubMed and directly to and from over 340 other journals that are on-line at Stanford.当然还要转移版权Prior to publication we require copyright releases signed by all authors. Our Authors Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must sign both sections of the form. (a signature on the lower section means that all conflicts of interest have been disclosed even if there are none).
Thank you for this contribution.
Sincerely,
Dr. xx
Associate Editor
我们的回复
Dear Dr.×××,
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to revise the above manuscript. According to the reviewers' comments, we have revised the manuscript to provided our explanation.
Furthermore, we revised the paper according to your suggestion.
1) The length of abstract is 194 words, and the word of the main text is 2550.
2) The layout and format guidelines have been followed.
3) The changes to the paper have been highlighted underlined as well as including detailed responses to the reviewers comments.
I hope you are satisfied with the revised version, however, if there is more question, we are willing to revise it again.
Thank you.
××××
come from×××
SCI 回复整理
暑假中了2篇SCI文章，影响因子都在IF=1.5-2.0之间。其实，在此之前，本人已经发表了若干SCI，而且已经是两个期刊的Reviewer。但尽管如此，随着文章积累越多，对SCI写作的认识也有所熟悉和深入。下面谈谈一些体会，与大家分享。 第一篇：去年12月份投稿，7月份返回意见。结论是：“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”实际上，这个结论已经非常好了。我看了以下审稿意见，然后就逐条的进行了Response。其中Response letter的格式我是参考了我审稿过的一篇德国学者的回复模式（我认为非常好）。但是，在审稿意见中，有一条意见要我对实验过程做一描述。我认为完全没有必要，所以没有改此项。很快，R1版文件被主编审回。我认为应该“Complete Accept”了，但意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”不出所料，主编的意见就是R1中没有改的那条，而且比较客气，认为“Probably the authors did not notice this requirement. Howev er, this issue is critical: to judge the value of the reported methodological development;”没有办法，我又认真对意见进行了修改。R2版文件我认为没有问题了，就等Accept了。 可是R2返回后，主编的意见还是意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”这次一看，原来意见是“The paper requires careful editing for use of English.”我想应该不会啊。我又仔细审查了Text，结果还是发现了几个不应该的拼写错误。我的Word的拼写可能出问题了，前几次竟然没有发现。这次，我不敢大意了，俗话云：事不过三。如果再有问题，主编的大斧可能就来了。于是，我认真的检查了全文，写了Resonse letter: Dear the Editors and reviewers: We appreciate again your valuable comments very much, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. According to the comments, we have revised our paper as follows: 1）Comment s: "…….. ." According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have checked again our spelling and rewriten or modified a number of expressions in the abstract, text, figures, and tables. Thanks ***, a reviewer of International Journal of ****, for his kind help on the text modifications(这是我表示诚意，特意加上去的). Especially, in the Acknowledgement, we added our thanks for anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our present paper. 果然，R3版文件当天就被主编接受了。意见：“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the reviewers have accepted your paper for publication.The proofs will be sent to you within three months of receipt of this email.” 通过上面的来回反复，我发现SCI回复意见一定要态度认真，逐条回复。对于中国作者，及时主编不说，也要对English进行认真核对，认真决定一切！ 这次，我真的学了很多经验教训。就在我改动之间，我又准备了另外一篇，而且把这篇Accept 的文章也引用上了。 第二篇：这次准备的非常充分，尤其是语法方面画了大量功夫，内容也比较新。就是把实验数据反过来了。不是直接报数据，而是先给了模型，而后用实验去验证。我感到满意的是Introduction。这里，我充分参考了木虫上Fudanmazhen的经验，尽量在“讲故事，而不是讲历史”。结果，7月29日投出，8月5日主编返回意见：直接接受，而且说无需任何进一步改动。目前，此篇文章已经上网了。与此同时，主编还发给我一篇西班牙作者的文章，让我当Reviewer。我肯定欣然接受了。因此，我本来就是这个期刊的审稿人。当然，这是我SCI运气最好的一次，估计也是最后一次了，因为直接接受的情形确实很少，我也不奢望每篇文章都这样，除非自己当主编。但是，通过这个假期的SCI较量，
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集
SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全 修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏 針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
sci修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
sci修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman )Spectroscopy”(LANL-2014-0001. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: 1. Response to comment (Reviewer 1): (The proposed method was established with the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol. It needs more data to prove the reliability of the method) Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the experiment of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is added to verify the reliability of the
回答SCI审稿人的方法
如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。 第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。 上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。 写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧 一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。 上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。 写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全 修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏 针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例
SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例.txt精神失常的疯子不可怕，可怕的是精神正常的疯子！附1：SCI扩展版和SCI核心版收录期刊的区别 SCI扩展版（以下简称SCIE）和SCI核心版（以下简称SCI）收录期刊还是有区别的，SCI期刊论文全部被SCI收录，SCIE期刊论文只是部分被SCI收录，这就是有的SCIE期刊一年有几百篇论文，却只有几十篇甚至十几篇论文被SCI收录的原因。具体到SCIE期刊上的一篇论文能否被SCI收录，还是要看美国ISI发布的报告，现在科技部信息研究所也公布这一报告，很多图书馆的SCI检索机构也可以查。 不过在国内，很多单位都把SCI期刊论文和SCIE期刊论文一视同仁，只要发表在SCI期刊或SCIE期刊上，该论文都当作SCI收录，这是管理者的无能抑或无为就不得而知了。但就我们单位而言（国内TOP10高校），这两者还是区别对待的，论文是否SCI收录还是看CISI的报告或SCI检索机构的证 附2：[精华]如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(1) 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。 续两点经验： 1，最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2，绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想该投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story”了。 以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。 我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。
(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板
List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× ...... 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏 针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have …… 最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理） 如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。 续两点经验： 1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。 以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。 我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。 自我感觉总结（不一定对）： 1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势； 2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息； 3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发； 4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。 欢迎大家批评指正。 我常用的回复格式: Dear reviewer: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below. 1）
sci 投稿回复
SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览2013-10-31 10:39阅读(12)转载自~~ ?赞(21) ?评论 ?转载(43) ?分享(32) ?复制地址 ?收藏夹按钮收藏 ?更多 已经是第一篇 | 下一篇：一步一步教你使用... 一、最初投稿Cover letter Dear Editors: We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be consider Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have enclosed. In this work, we evaluated …… (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journa The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration: 1) Name A E-mail: ××××@×××× 2) Name B E-mail: ××××@×××× We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments fro queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 二、催稿信 Dear Prof. ×××: Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the st titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more t to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not? I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very rev iewer’s comments. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards! Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 三、修改稿Cover letter
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板 SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部 分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿 号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as w ell as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully a nd have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red i n the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ××××××。。。。。。 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏 针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用 用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing …….. It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’ s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’ s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. Thes e changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will m eet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions 以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。与大家分享。 从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。这些意见分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见，我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高文章的质量。
SCI 审稿意见回复范文
创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX 创作者：别如克* 论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences 投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表 编辑信内容（注：有删节）： Dear Mr. XXX, Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below. If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures. A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission. You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area. We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript. To submit a revision, go to https://www.sodocs.net/doc/148594317.html,/lfs/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there. Yours sincerely, Joseph J. Bahl, PhD Editor
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全
SCI 修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全 修改稿回答審稿人①意見（最重要①部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” （ID: 文章稿號）. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corer ctions in the paper and the responds to the reviewer are as flowing: s co Responds to the reviewer ' s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.Response to comment：?（?…簡要歹U出意見） Respo nse: xxxxxx 2.Response to comment: ?（…簡要歹U出意見.） Response: xxxxxx 。。。。。。 逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏 針對不同①問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligenee of .. ... We are very sorry for our in correct writi ng ... ... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that ...