如何回复编辑和审稿人

专题半月谈 - 如何回复编辑和审稿人

作者：QIN 提交日期：2010-12-09 06:25:55 PM | 访问量：713

专题半月谈 - 如何回复编辑和审稿人

2008年medjaen在论文版交流了<发表SCI论文的一些小技巧 > https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/bbs/p ost/view?bid=45&id=12604749&sty=1&tpg=1&age=0 和 <发表SCI论文的一些小技巧 (I I)> https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=12767562&sty=1&tpg=1&age=0 后，得到战友和版主的普遍关注和高度评价。由于篇幅有限，不能对那些小技巧一一展开讨论。应战友要求，在版主的支持下，本人在此设立一个半月谈专题-如何回复编辑和审稿人实例分析。

需说明以下几点：

1.为了突出问题的典型性，有些“实例“已经过修饰，故已不是作者原稿（或原意）。

2.修改和注解谨代表本人观点。对于同一问题可能有不同或更好的修改方法或回答方式。欢迎讨论。

3.同时亦欢迎各高级战友按以下格式增加实例（请注意版权问题）。

希望战友回帖时紧紧围绕主题，不要讨（争）论与主题无关的话题。

论文题目：

所投杂志：

投稿结果：

编辑/审稿人问题：

作者原答：

建议改答：

注解请写在文中相应的地方或单独列出。15 January 2009 （第一讲）给编辑的回复信

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

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 thin k the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for pu blication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points rai sed in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.

If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate respo nses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in le ngthy re-review procedures.

A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmissio n.

You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file i n 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 conside red a new manuscript.

To submit a revision, go to https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/lfs/ and log in as an Autho r.

You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph J. Bahl, PhD

Editor

Life Sciences

Format Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check t he format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style. Reviewers' comments:

XXXXX （略）

Reviewer #2:

XXXXX （略）

Editors note and suggestions:

（注：编辑的建议）

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>> Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A again st virus B.

Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.

A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activ ity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmaco logical experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokin etic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was me asured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to st udy potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antivir al activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for eff ective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibilit y of benefit from further experiments with A.

The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and se rum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text. Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its s tructural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatmen t of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.

>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example

given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)

>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the fi rst name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the f irst name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)

>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of re viewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discuss ion section.

>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are mean s +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.

>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfie d by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Rememb er most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe. Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you hav e questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please co ntact me at bahl@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html, Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences

作者回复信原稿

：

Dear Dr. Bahl,

I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.

I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days a fter infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus ti ters and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Pro duction of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-P CR.

I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comme

nts and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of man uscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and it s pharmacokinetic beha viour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth. Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:

XXXXX

Reviewer #2:

XXXXX

Editors note and suggestions:

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English Answer:

I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and it s pharmacokine tic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth （注：多处语法错误）.

Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.

Answer:

I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.

The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and se rum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.

Answer:

I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）. Introduction:

some sentences can be made less passive.

Answer:

I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.

The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors

Answer:

I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.

The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the firs t name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the ear lier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should b e (Chen et al., 2002)

Answer:

I changed the style of references.

Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SE M and for figures are +- SD.

Answer:

（注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）

reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by i nclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: mo st readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe. Answer:

Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac patholo gic slices in the paper (Fig2).

I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.

If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.

Yours Sincerely

Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)

建议修改稿：

Dear Dr. Bahl,

Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.

As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrif iced on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weig ht to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determ ined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.

We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of re viewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed be low. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we fee l it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.

The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing compa ny in Hong Kong.

I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards,

Yours Sincerely

Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)

Replies to Reviewers and Editor

First of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constru ctive comments and suggestions.

Replies to Reviewer #1:

Xxxxx （略）

Replies to Reviewer #2:

Xxxxx （略）

Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary English Answer:

I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxs ackiev irus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.

Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.

Answer:

I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothl y.

The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and se rum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.

Answer:

I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throug hout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.

Introduction:

some sentences can be made less passive.

Answer:

I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.

The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors

Answer:

This has been done by us as well as the editing company.

The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the firs t name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the ear lier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should b e (Chen et al., 2002)

Answer:

I have changed the style of references according to the journal.

Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.

Answer:

SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the rev ised manuscript.

reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified by in

clusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: mos t readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe. Answer:

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathol ogic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2).很好的经验，谢谢分享！31 Januar y 2009 （第二讲）给审稿人的回复信

论文题目：

Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer

所投杂志：

BMC Cancer.

结果：

这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。作者在论文适当地方加上了有关陈述）

审稿人内容（有删节）：

Reviewer's report

Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer

Version: 1 Date: 12 June 200X

Reviewer: XXXX XXXX (A Japanese Reviewer)

Reviewer's report:

General

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Compulsory Revisions

(that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reache

d)

1. XXXXX.

2. XXXXX.

3. XXXXX.

4) The clinico pathological parameters examined are reported in Table 1. Among the primary tumor characteristics, the Authors consider the diameter, but ignor e T stage. Consequently the T parameter is not considered in the multivariate a

nalysis. In other studies, T stage has emerged as an independent factor. The Au thors should therefore state the reason for their unusual choice. Nor is the nu mber of metastatic nodes reported in this table. Moreover, for tumor differenti ation, the Authors distinguish between two groups (differentiated vs undifferen tiated), instead of between the usual 3 categories (G1, G2 and G3). I have neve r heard of the histological classification used by the Authors (massive, next a nd diffuse). They might therefore state their reasons for choosing it, providin g a reference, if available.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor Essential Revisions

(such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the autho r can be trusted to correct)

XXXXX.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretionary Revisions

(which the author can choose to ignore)

(None)

What next?:

Reject because too small an advance to publish

Level of interest:

An article of limited interest

Quality of written English:

Needs some language corrections before being published

[b]Statistical review:

Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics.

作者原答:

T stage is considered in the multivariate analysis, and some modification has b een made in tumor differentiation and histological classification.

建议改答：

We accept Dr. XXX comment (表明你对审稿人的欣赏和赞同). In the revised version of the manuscript, T stage has been added in the multivariate analysis, and des cription of tumor differentiation and histological classification has been modi fied; the histological classification in the original manuscript has been repla ced by the generally accepted classification (Page 6, line 15; Table 4) (同意审稿人的建议，并根据其建议进行修改。同时指出在何处做了修改。).

加注：

作者原回答与修改后的回答并无本质差别，正文中的修改也是一样的。但作者原回答会给审稿人“不太乐意”或“轻描淡写”的印象。因为审稿人花了122个单词来就此问题发表建议，而作者只用了20个。

修改后的回答，相信一开始就赢得审稿人的好感。你的回答不光是给审稿人看的，杂志编辑也会看（至少审稿人会这么认为），所以，审稿人会有种满足感（国外审稿人没有酬劳，得到作者和编辑的认可是他们审稿最主要的目的）。建议得到认可（当然，这里审稿人的确是正确合理的），而且作者还按其建议对文章进行修改，相信绝大多数审稿人是不会（不好意思）再拒绝修改稿的（所谓伸手不打笑面人）。当然，这篇文章起死回生、二审通过审稿关，关键是杂志编辑手下留情，给了作者再投(Re-submission)的机会。

有时，审稿人的建议得到作者认可，但作者无法按建议修改，尤其补做试验。这种情况将在以后举例说明。感谢美捷登主编的总结并同大家分享！

大家有不同的见解也可以借这个机会拿出来讨论。理----越辩越明！好贴，留下脚印，细细拜读受益匪浅，非常感谢！真希望以后经常看到类似的帖子，对于发文章太有好了！！感谢主编.

学习中.受益匪浅，期待下一讲期待下一讲如何回复审稿人的尖锐提问？

论文题目：Misdiagnosis of A (一种先天性疾病) as 某某 tumor: a case report

所投杂志：Neuro-Ophthalmology

投稿结果：大修

注：前段时间投了一个影响因子较低的杂志（2006IF0.06），内容为某某先天性疾病在门诊被误诊为肿瘤而收入院，住院时经过详细检查而确诊。今天刚刚收到大修通知：

其中，Referee 2提的意见非常尖锐。认为我们可能是诊疗措施不够规范，这样的误诊报道

interesting但是不适于发表。虽然的确是我们门诊没有认真而详细的检查造成（门诊病人太多，而且这种先天性疾病太罕见，收入院除了为手术的目的，另一个也是为了详细的检查）。该如何回复Referee 2的意见？

另外，Referee 2意见如此尖锐，肯定给的意见是拒稿，但主编给了大修的通知，不知道他的潜在意思？我该从哪方面着手修改？

不知道跟贴求助是否合适，如果不合适，请版主通知我，将另开新帖，谢谢。同时也希望前辈们出手相助，感谢了

审稿人意见如下：

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author

On PDF file

Page 4 line 17 -- should read: " accidentally a month before."

Page 4 line 43 -- should read: " (fig 2). Macula "

----------------------------------------------------------

Introduction mentions - the conditon frequently requires no treatment--

On your reference #3 the authors mention patching to try to improve vision -- o ne patient had a good outcome, multiple not done, and few failures. Was patchin g attempted (recent papers have advocated patching even older children)?

Did the retinal specialist who referred the patient performed a full exam inclu ding dilated fundus examination before performing a CT of the orbits?

Color photo would be a plus.

Was B scan ultrasonography of the eye performed? This would have helped to supp ort a clinical diagnosis of a dilated retinal examination with less cost. Referee: 2

Comments to the Author

The authors try to caution eye specialists and neurosurgeons not to do major or bital surgery on children without doing a dilated fundus examination with an in direct ophthalmoscope. In their case, once the correct diagnosis was made, by p roperly examining the eye, surgery was not necessary. A thorough pre-operative examination of the eye should be a automatic prerequisite to orbital surgery fo r poor vision, so I do not think their paper presents a unique idea.

They have an interesting case, and a case report reviewing the subject might be of value, but I think they may have to be satisfied that they practiced good m edicine and saved a child from an unnecessary operation, but that it did not me rit publication.审稿人的意见和建议很重要，一般编辑都会尊重审稿人的建议。但在有多个审稿人且建议不一致的时候，编辑自己会根据文章内容作出决定。半月谈第二讲的案例便是典型一例。

我认为，第二审稿人非常明白你的病理和发病理报告的意图，也给了正面的评价。遗憾的是，他/她在每段的最后一句得出了与前面不一致的结论。这是编辑愿意给你机会的原因。该审稿人应该是非英文背景的，学术水平一般，对病理报告是否应发表的评判能力有限。但你应认真回答他/她的意见。

你可以将针对第二审稿人意见的答复贴上，大家帮你修改。如愿意，给编辑的回复信也可在此贴讨论修改。

当然，战友不知你的病理报告内容，只能就你公开的信息发表看法，可能有些偏颇，最后应由你自己拿定主意。非常感谢美捷登老师的指点，我会修改好后会及时跟帖的，谢谢了！虽然稿件的状态是大修，但是个人觉得审稿人2没有给出什么修改意见。审稿人1给出的修改意见已经我都作出了相应的修改。但是，这样修改似乎也不过是细枝末节，算得上“大修”？我在怀疑我的修改是不是做得不够？！主编老师，能不能帮我看看这个问题如何解决。https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=13875400&sty=1&tpg=1&age=0

谢谢!Please see my reply at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=13875400& sty=1&tpg=1&age=0这期半月谈专题与duyinapoleon战友共同主讲。

15 February 2009 （第三讲）给审稿人的回复信

论文题目：

Misdiagnosis of A (一种先天性疾病) as 某某 tumor: a case report

所投杂志：

Neuro-Ophthalmology

投稿结果：

大修，结果未知（前途未卜，因为该审稿人建议拒稿，但审稿人给作者机会）

审稿人审稿内容及作者原答和建议改答

（有删节）：

Reviewer 2's report

审稿人问题1

The authors try to caution eye specialists and neurosurgeons not to do major or bital surgery on children without doing a dilated fundus examination with an in direct ophthalmoscope. In their case, once the correct diagnosis was made, by p roperly examining the eye, surgery was not necessary. A thorough pre-operative examination of the eye should be a automatic prerequisite to orbital surgery fo r poor vision, so I do not think their paper presents a unique idea.

作者原答

Answer: Although correct diagnosis can be made by thorough examinations, doctor s are often misleaded by a “wrong” chief complaint（wrong可能表示主诉症状本身误导，也可能表示病人说错，也可能是收诊医生记录错误）. In our case, the retinal specialist who made a misdiagnosis at first （at first用词不当）, was misleaded by “blurred vision in the left eye over a month” and did not pay enough atte ntion to differentiate a congenital disease from “tumor” （需说明两者关联）. In （On） the other hand, it is also the result of too many patients we have to manage per working day (most large hospital （hospitals）in China is (are) on t his occasion) and doctors in outpatient clinic have not much time to perform th orough ophthalmic examination (不应太绝对). So, the clinical misdiagnosis is no t complete occasional event. We could learn a lot from this case.

建议改答

Answer: We agree with the referee that correct diagnosis can be made by proper and thorough examinations （首先肯定审稿人的观点to make him/her happy）. Howeve r, doctors are often misled by an “atypical” （比wrong要具体且客观）chief co mplaint, especially when there are too many patients in an outpatients departme nt such as in a Chinese ophthalmic hospital （这句点出误诊原因，下面再逐一解释）. In our case, both the retinal specialist and orbital specialist who made the i nitial misdiagnosis, were misled by the sympto m of “blurred vision in the left eye over a month”, which is characteristic of an “acquired disease”, and thu s he did not pay enough attention to differentiate a congenital disease from a “tumor” （指出没有想到先天性疾病的原因1）. On the other hand, like most large

hospitals in China, doctors in the Outpatient Department have to manage up to X (number) patients we per working day and thus some may have little time to fo llow the “good clinical practice” and perform thorough ophthalmic examination s （误诊原因2）. Consequently, the misdiagnosis inevitably occurred. This case report presents the lesion and reiterate the importance of thorough ophthalmic examinations prior to any surgery （这句表明为什么该病例报告值得发表）.

审稿人问题2

They have an interesting case, and a case report reviewing the subject might be of value, but I think they may have to be satisfied that they practiced good m edicine and saved a child from an unnecessary operation, but that it did not me rit publication.

作者原答

Answer: The initially misdiagnosis was made by our two specialists (one is a re tinal specialist and the other orbital) （词句的意义不明）. Moreover, the reaso ns for the misdiagnosis have been discussed in our case report, which would be useful for other doctors, especially for residents to avoid the same mistake (说服力比较弱). And （正规书信和论文不宜用And开句）we believe our radiology im ages in our case will contribute to a better understanding of this condition(说服力比较弱).

建议改答

Answer: We did feel relieved and satisfied when the unnecessary surgery was avo ided （正面回应审稿人的肯定意见）. However, the fact that initial misdiagnosis was made by two experienced but busy specialists (one is a retinal specialist a nd the other orbital), cannot be ignored in our clinical practice （表明我们不能因为我们避免了不必要的手术而自满）. We feel that it would be beneficial to repo rt the case and share our experience or lesion with other doctors, in order to avoid or minimize the same mistake （因此，我们希望发表该病例报告已警示同行）. In addition, we believe that the radiology images from our unique case will con tribute to a better understanding of this congenital disease （虽不重要，但也许编辑喜欢）.

加注：

1.该文的特色是一审稿人觉得本病例报告不值得发表，但编辑愿意给作者rebuttal的机会。其实，该审稿人的评语总体来讲是不错的。但令人不解的是，每条评语最后一句得出跟前面截然不同的结论。可能他/她并不是“大牛”，不太能掌握病例报告发表的标准。

2.作者的回答总体还是非常好的，只是语气稍欠委婉，理据说服力需更进一步加强。敬仰美捷登主编！！对这些问题的回答简直是出神入化，谢谢指导。有机会向你请教，请多多指点。首先真诚地感谢夏老师的鼓励和百忙中抽出时间帮忙回复审稿人。这篇个案是我们从0 7年开始写，辗转多个杂志，经过了3次“面目全非”的修改才成今天这样的面貌。我也是从这个个案开始练习英文写作，到现在虽无article类型文章，但已有数篇letter发表或正在发表。这个个案是目前唯一能冲击article的题材，所以宁愿降低影响因子，也要过一把article瘾

另外，说到“主讲”那是千万个不敢当啊，我只想说说rebut审稿人的经历。从一开始投稿，第二作者（也没有sci经验）就对我说，从误诊的角度写这个个案不好，因为万一被审稿人提出为什么会犯这样的低级错误，那多难堪啊？果不其然，referee#2就提了我们最不愿看到的问题。极度头疼。但是想起大学英语课时老师曾和我们开玩笑，家长反对大学生恋爱有N种理由，那么，我们支持恋爱能不能有N种理由？例如增强自信心，学会如何关心别人...？（题外话，本人非常感谢这位英语老师，是他教会了我如何用自己的大脑思考问题。）据此，纵使审稿人提出N种反对发表的理由，我们也可以找到N中支持发表的理由进行辩驳。需要做的就是如何在这些理由当中找到合理的，并且是最有力的。何况，在我们这篇个案中，编辑给大修，估计很大程度是想听听我们是用什么理由来说服他，让他心满意足的接受文章。因为，referee#1提出的意见都很好满足。

最后，再次感谢大家，尤其是夏老师的帮助，让我们比较顺利的完成了这次rebutment。可惜没见过先例，要不然就在acknowledge中感谢夏老师

2009-3-2，文章大修后直接被接受，感谢，感谢i学习学习这个帖子要好好读，非常实用！感谢美捷登主编老师的讲解！这期半月谈专题与blueman1320战友共同主讲。

28 February 2009 （第四讲）给编辑的申诉信

论文题目

：Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis

所投杂志：

Gut

结果：

编辑直接拒稿，作者重新修改并申诉，申诉成功，直接接受。

编辑信内容

（有删节）：

GUT/2008/156323

Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis

Authors’ names （略）

Dear XXX,

Thank you for submitting this manuscript to Gut, which was discussed at the las t Editorial Committee meeting. We are sorry to say that we are unable to accept it for publication, as it did not achieve a high enough priority score to enab le it to be published in Gut. We favour letters which add new data and did not feel that you letter did this sufficiently.

Please remember that Gut receives about eight times as many manuscripts as we a re able to publish, therefore regrettably it follows that many perfectly adequa te papers must be rejected. This decision must be based not only on quality, bu t also timeliness and priority against other subject areas.

For more details, please go to:

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,

enter you Author Area and click on the 'Manuscripts with decisions' queue.

We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion.

With kind regards.

Professor Robin Spiller

Handling Editor

Professor Robin Spiller

Editor

作者申诉信原文

：

Dear editors,

Thanks for your kindly help in our previous manuscripts (GUT/2008/156323 and GU T/2008/156711).

The decision of the editorial board was a little disappointed to me. We had dis cussed the topic again and rewrite the manuscript according to the suggestions of the editorial board. We also invited our friend Harry Hua-Xiang Xia for insi ghtful editing the paper.

Although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDs is effe ctive in preventing PEP (these results are of significant clinical implication s), several issues remain unsolved. For example, do risk factors influence the prophylactic effect? So, we performed a complimentary meta-analysis based on th e methodology and the source articles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. Also, it must emphasized that there were several limitations of the both meta-analyses including small sample sizes (for both subjects and studies), inconsis tent definition of PEP, and less representative populations.

We believe the issues raised will improve the quality of the meta-analysis. Tha nks for your re-consideration.

On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed material “Rectal Admi nistration of NSAIDs in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Complimenta ry Meta-analysis” for possible publication in GUT. I have read most of the pap ers that the journal had published and I believe our research to be in accordan ce with the style of the JOURNAL.

We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approved it for public ation. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this manuscript neither has bee n published in whole or in part nor is it being considered for publication else where.

We state that there is no conflict of interest and ethical adherence in this st udy.

Best Regards,

Authors’ names and affiliations （略）

作者申诉信建议修改文

：

Dear Professor Spiller （在已知编辑姓氏和职称时请不要再泛称editor, 以示尊重）Thanks for your letter in response to our previous submission of Letter to Edit

or (GUT/2008/156323) （事实上，编辑并没有帮助，而是回复）.

The decision of the Editorial Board might be because that we did not make it cl ear that the letter supports the overall conclusion of the Elmunzer et al., but provides additional analysis and points out the weaknesses of the meta-analysi s. We further discussed the topic again and have modified the Letter according to your letters. In addition, we also invited Dr. Harry Hua-Xiang Xia, who is a n internationally recognized gastroenterologist, to join the authorship team an d make comments and edit the manuscript. （这一段非常重要。陈述失望心情于事无补。相反，应说明由作者引起的可能导致论文被拒的原因（很多作者论文被拒后归咎于审稿人或编辑不理解论文的价值），并再次强调论文的价值所在。加上本人为作者也许对论文被接收有一定作用，但关键还是在于强调论文本身的价值。）

We believe the Letter is publishable for the following reasons. First, although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP, which is of significant clinical implications, several issues remain unsolved. For example, do risk factors influence the prophylactic effect? So, we performed a complimentary meta-analysis based on the methodology and th e source articles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. We further reveale d that administration of NSAIDs was associated with decreased incidence of PEP in patients with low (RR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.71, P = 0.006) and high risks (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23~0.72, P = 0.002). Second, there were several limitatio ns of the meta-analyses originated from the source articles. These include smal l sample sizes (for both subjects and studies), inconsistent definition of PEP, and less representative populations. These limitations should be more clearly acknowledged in the paper by Elmunzer et al. （这一段是核心。能否说服编辑在此一博。原信缺乏数据，而且稍欠层次和说服力）。

Therefore, we wish to re-submit the further revised version for your re-conside ration. （原信有三段与本申诉无关，建议删掉）。

With best regards,

Yours sincerely,

Authors’ names and affiliations （略）

加注：

1.该文的特色是编辑委员会觉得本信稿(Letter to Editor)不值得发表，并说明原因，即稿源太多（8倍），本文无新意。但作者坚持认为该信稿有新意，故决定申诉(Appeal)。

2.在看了该信稿并与作者交流后，本人认为值得申诉。并一起讨论修改原文及申诉信。该信稿很快被接受（并成为作者特殊的结婚礼物）。

3.论文写作与发表只有一般规则，没有绝对定律。只要你坚信是有价值的东西（试验结果或心灵火花）都有发表的潜力，关键在于如何准确将价值的东西表达出来。

4. 对待拒稿，要有良好心态。多多检讨课题设计和论文写作中的问题，而不是抱怨审稿人或编辑没有认真阅读你的论文。遇到审稿人对论文有误解时，我常用的一句话是“We are sorry that we did not make it clear”, 或“We are sorry for the misunderstandi ng due to unclear descriptions in our previous manuscript” 而不是“The reviewe r doesn’t understand…”或“The reviewer is wrong….”.等等。在我的回复信中，审稿人从没有“错”。经典的东西，是需要用心来品读的

感谢xia老师谢谢！真的很实用，感谢LZ。备案学习中....可以请美捷登主编帮我看看吗？不好意思啊是不是这个帖，https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=14047569 ？

已回复了。这些意见使我们受益匪浅，由衷感谢美捷登主编的辛苦付出，支持成为**中级战友！！读了美捷登主编老师的帖子，收益很多，尤其是对我这样的菜鸟，帮助很大。

请老师有空帮忙看看我的问题，谢谢您！

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=14089237&sty=1&tpg=2&age=0Could you P M your question specifically? I might be able to help you.主编老师的讲解很精彩，我也才刚刚发表了一篇外文文章，但不知该如何回复编辑的来信，主编老师能指导一下吗？不胜感激

我向JBB投了一篇关于肝癌患者和调T之间关系的文章

编辑回信说他认为这篇文章属于临床研究而不是研究性文章，还列出了临床研究文章的定义，有没有那位老师遇到过类似的问题，应该如何答复呢？下面是信的原文：

First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I am Hend Rostom, an

Editorial Staff member at Hindawi Publishing Corporation and I am

handling all the editorial work regarding your manuscript JBB/432149

titled "Clinical significance of the proportion of xxx (不是药物)in patients wi th hepatocellular carcinoma——a single

center randomized controlled study."

After checking the content of your manuscript, I found that the

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

回复审稿人意见

1. Dear Professor xx: Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ 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. 2. 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） .... 3. Our manuscript entitled, ¨****¨ has been carefully revised according to Reviewers’ suggestions. Now I answer the questions one-by-one. About the English writing of the manuscript, we ask for native English speaker to revise the paper before it was submitted to the magazine and

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 ……...

审稿意见回复模板,中文

审稿意见回复模板,中文 篇一：审稿意见模板 如何学习审稿 专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。 一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量

评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。 那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。 做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行

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 ……...

(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.

如何回复审稿人意见

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见 Response to Editor and Reviewer 这是我的英文修改稿回复信 Dear Editor, RE: Manuscript ID We would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments. Below is our response to their comments. Thanks for all the help. Best wishes, Dr. XXX Corresponding Author 下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答： 一些习惯用语如下： Revision —authors’ response Reviewer #1: Major comments

(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。

专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何写

专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何 写 第一，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候一定要说：谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！ 第二，如果审稿人提 ___你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样说，等于委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他 ___。 第三，如果审稿人 ___明显有问题，也不说能说审稿人 ___是错误的，可以他 ___发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调自己的观点是正确的。一句话，就是凭证据说话。 第四，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。那么，不用客气，直接写信给，痛批审稿人。（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。）

第五，在回复信的结尾最好写上再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。 保持正确的语调，做出回应。 说明 （1）在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。 （2）在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。 （3）里很多人都会轻易犯错，尤其是刚发论文的时候，总觉得自己一定要根据审稿人的每一条意见都做出修改。我以自己的亲身

一些英文审稿意见及回复的

一些英文审稿意见的模板 好东西 原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博 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，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！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majorrevision ，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

如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)

Williams, Hywel C. (2004) How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51 (1). pp. 79-83. ISSN 0190-9622 Access from the University of Nottingham repository: https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/859/2/How_to_reply_to_referees.pdf Copyright and reuse: The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see: https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. For more information, please contact eprints@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/295162412.html,

sci审稿意见回复范文

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 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 Life Sciences ， Format Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style. Reviewers' comments:

审稿人意见的回复

审稿人意见的回复 审稿人1: 王婷婷等在本研究中利用实验性自身免疫性脑脊髓炎（Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, EAE）的动物模型，观察到性别差异显著影响多发性硬化症的发病率和疾病严重程度，并在细胞水平上阐明这一现象是与浸润的CD4+T细胞及其亚群TH-1 和TH-17 细胞均有明显的增加密切相关。这在理论上为诱发自身免疫性疾病的发生、发展和相关因素的探讨提供了新的思路。可以为临床诊断和治疗提供一定的参考依据。其创新之处在于从性别差异角度宏观了解多发性硬化症的病例机制。研究过程即包括了相关疾病动物模型的分析，又进行了组织学和细胞学的详细分析，实验方法可靠。研究结论与先前的临床观察结果一致。 Fig 4 中作者观察到CD4+T细胞及其亚群TH-1 和TH-17 细胞均有明显的增加，不知作者是否观察过这些细胞的活力（viability) 是否在不同性别的小鼠间是否有相关差异。 针对审稿人的这个意见,我们从雌、雄小鼠中提取了CD4+T细胞，并使其向T H-1、T H-17方向分化后，使用CCK-8试剂盒对其细胞的viability做了检测，从其测定的结果来看，这些细胞的viability在不同性别的小鼠间并没有明显的差异，结果如下： 审稿人2: 该文章的设计合理，具有一定的创新性，实验方法可靠，但结论稍牵强，建议从自身实验出发，合理讨论。 文章讨论部分尚存在欠缺，引出太多不能确定的解释，如”关于MS/ EAE 性别差异的机制仍不清楚，较为一致的看法是: EAE/ MS 是一种CD4+ T细胞介导的炎性脱髓鞘疾病. 这

与我们观察到的C57BL/6雌雄小鼠由于浸润中枢神经系统的CD4+ T细胞亚群TH-1、TH-17细胞的不同所引起性别差异的结果相符合.” ,目前EAE/MS性别差异的原因尚不明确，并不是由于CD4+ T的不同导致的性别差异。另外，本人认为通过本研究尚不能得出C57BL/6雌雄小鼠的性别差异是由于浸润中枢神经系统的CD4+ T细胞亚群TH-1、TH-17细胞的不同所引起。 针对这个问题，在文章中我们的描述出现了笔误，在此想论述的是MS/ EAE发病的机制仍不清楚，较为一致的看法是: EAE/ MS 是一种CD4+ T细胞介导的炎性脱髓鞘疾病. 在实验中观察到C57BL/6雌、雄小鼠免疫后浸润中枢神经系统的CD4+T细胞及其亚群T H-1、T H-17细胞的细胞数存在着不同，这可能是导致其性别差异的原因之一。为此，论文中讨论的部分我们也做了相应的修改。 另如“在本实验中采用的是相同年龄的雌雄小鼠，实验中发现雄鼠均明显重于雌鼠，这是否可能是雄鼠发病较为严重的原因需要进一步验证.”，那么同性别的小鼠，不同体重的是否发病不同呢？实验结论应该可靠，具有参照意义，假说提出亦应该有理有据。 针对于审稿人提出的“同性别的小鼠，不同体重的是否发病不同”，我们通过实验发现同年龄同性别、体重之间有差异性显著的雌数、雄鼠，发病并没有显著性差异，因此同年龄的小鼠进行EAE免疫时，体重并没有显著性影响其发病，发病的不同主要还是受性别差异的影响，结果如下： 终审意见:

回复审稿人意见

Dear Professor xx: Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’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. 2. 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）

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

一些英文审稿意见的模板 最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio？ 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work,