其他
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧总结
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。
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 ActionsLOA1: 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.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.Responses to ReviewersTo 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 work 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）”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.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 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.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).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, 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.http://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-05-0172Comment: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 conclusion 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 releaseperformed 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 3?3cm2 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.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 FAQDecision Letter[Return to Queue]To:作者姓名（电子邮件）From: clinchemed@clinchem.aacc.orgSubject: Clinical Chemistry -- Manuscript. DecisionCc:RE: Clinical Chemistry MS ID# CLINCHEM/2002/036332TITLE:Dear Dr. xxx:Your manuscript. has been examined by two expert reviewers. Please visit http://submit.clinchem.org 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 athttp://www.aacc.org/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 http://www.aacc.org/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 nesleyAssociate EditorP.S. You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit a Revision" queue at http://submit.clinchem.org. 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 athttp://www.aacc.org/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。还是举例说明吧1）实验的有效性和深度（at least for a few substances of major importancedetection 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 http://submit.clinchem.org 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. xxxAssociate EditorP.S. You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit a Revision" queue at http://submit.clinchem.org. A checklist of requirements for submission can be found at http://www.aacc.org/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 http://www.aacc.org/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 (http://www.clinchem.org) 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 http://www.aacc.org/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. xxAssociate 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×××文章来源：南京鸿迈生物
本文无商业用途，如有侵权请联系小编删除
分享来源科研动态（微信ID：likesci）