从实例出发教你如何与审稿人“斗智斗勇”

号外：自公众号开通以来，得到很多老师和同学的支持，经各位建议，近期陆续建立了微信群，汇集了各大高校的老师及硕博士生，如有需要进群，可加小编微信：18519589389，并注明单位及研究方向，小编会拉各位入群。

论文有可能被拒，谁都被拒过稿。只字不改就接受的论文极少，即使是最优秀的科学家，最漂亮的研究，也照样可能被拒或者被要求修改。不要消极对待目标期刊拒稿和退修要求，而应把它视为发表过程的一个环节，其目的是为了让你的论文在科学上尽可能更健全，以便将来被录用为科学文献，并成为“集体知识”的一部分。

期刊拒稿的原因

期刊拒稿有各种原因，大多数在理文编辑论文写作系列讲座的中已经提及。 比如，如果对拟投期刊的选择不当，就有可能不送去审稿便直接拒稿。期刊定位恰当才能增加稿件获得同行评议的机会。同理，拙劣的投稿信也可能造成不经审稿便直接拒稿。违反目标期刊《稿约》的规定可能被期刊编辑认为不尊重对方，从而造成拒稿，当然更可能的是被要求修改格式后再投。

其他拒稿原因包括研究设计有缺陷、论文写作语言水平不合格、研究方法或统计检验选择或解释不当、结果叙述不当或夸大其辞、引言和/或讨论不客观公正或缺乏细节；或者就是缺乏新颖性（比如你的研究只是简单重复别人已发表的工作） 、重要性或相关性。

投稿之前严格分析你的论文，考虑审稿人会着眼的所有要素，你就可能提前发现这些问题。照着理文编辑论文写作教学系列中的经验来做，就能加快从初投到录用的进度，并让其间的各个阶段相对顺利。所以，在投稿前值得尽全力完善文稿质量，以减小拒稿的可能。

关于同行审稿和如何应付，可以考虑一下审稿人会如何处理你的稿件。不同的期刊对审稿人的要求各不相同，但是他们基本上都会要求审稿人审查你的稿件是否满足如下这些良好科研和写作的要素；如果你的稿件不满足其中某项，审稿人还要写出相关评语。

今天我们来谈谈回复审稿人意见的几个要点。收到的审稿意见，少则几条，多则几十条， 面对这张战书，需要淡定，淡定，再淡定。首先分一分类，哪些需要细节修改，哪些需要补充实验，哪些需要好好查查文献战胜审稿人的刁难。想好了，再开始一场不见血光的战斗！下面小编就给大家传授几招，回复审稿人的正确姿势！

回合1：先礼后兵，礼貌开头

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “文章题目”. These comments are all valuable andvery 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 corrections which we hope meet with approval. （你的提议太有用了，我论文的质量蹭蹭蹭就上去了！我们相当仔细研究了你的建议之类的话）The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows: .......

回合2：细节修改，不容小觑，一一作答，有礼有节

比如审稿人提出：图中需要补充比例尺

回复：As for the referee’s concern, we have added scale bars to the Figures.

比如审稿人提出：部分图片没有显著性差异

回复：As for the referee’s concern, we have indicated a significant difference with asterisk in figures.

比如审稿人提出：通篇语言问题不过关

回复：We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and edited by a native speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’s standard. Thanks so much for your useful comments.

比如审稿人提出：补充缩写词的全称

回复：As for the referee’s concern, the full descriptions of the abbreviations like IHC, MTT etc have been supplemented in the revised manuscript.

比如审稿人提出：裂解液成分有问题

回复：We are very sorry for the mistake. Lentivirus-transduced cells were washed twice with PBS, and suspended in a lysis buffer (2% mercaptoethanol, 20% glycerol, and 4% SDS, in 100 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 6.8). The information for the lysis buffer has been corrected in the materials and methods.

回合3：补充实验，耗时耗力，如果不补，只能argue

比如审稿人提出：补充正常皮肤细胞作对照

Tips：如果你真的不想补，或者正常细胞株，你也买不到，还是查一查正常细胞株的名字，告诉审稿人你确实是去努力过，只是事与愿违啊！

回复：Indeed, it will be more convincing if we get a comparative assessment on normal keratinocytes. However, the normal skin cell line TE 353.SK that we recently obtained could not be cultured stably under the condition of our lab at this time. We are also collecting human tissue samples from patients with primary melanoma and benign nevi. Based on our data, XXX expression will be analyzed in clinical samples by immunohistochemistry, and the correlation between XXX expression and the prognosis of melanoma will be determined in our subsequent investigations. Therefore, the referee’s concern is of importance for our further study, and we will show the results in our next paper for XXX.

比如审稿人提出：补充体内实验

Tips：补充动物实验，是审稿人最爱发的一招，其实一点不令人意外。既然躲不过，就要见招拆招，如果能补上，当然是给了漂亮的回马枪；要是没有条件补，或者实验来不及，也要尽量说的委婉点，假装你确实努力了，是审稿人给的时间太短了，我根本来不及啊！

回复：We are appreciative of the reviewer’s suggestion. Indeed, it will be more profound if we get the relevant results in vivo. We have purchased 10 thymus-null BALB/c nude mice (female, age 4-6 weeks) from the Animal Center of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Osteosarcoma xenografts were established in nude mice according to a previous report (Gao et al., 2009) （我们去买了若干只小鼠，按照文献的方法操作）. Briefly, control lentivirus or XXX gene shRNA-expressing lentivirus infected XXX cells (1×105) were suspended in 0.1 ml PBS and then injected subcutaneously into the proximal tibia of each anesthetized nude mice (n=5 in each group). Unfortunately, the xenografts could not grow after inoculation for three weeks （满怀欣喜的接种到动物身上，然而实验这东西，哪能一遍就成呢，我们做了一遍，结果没能成瘤，实在是悲剧了）. The limitation of technical condition may be the main reason. Also, we doubt that the cell viability could be insufficient to initiate osteosarcoma tumorigenesis in vivo due to the long-distance transport. Therefore, we seek for the editor’s tolerance and understanding. Many thanks for your kind help!

然而，补充实验，还是逃不过的一截，究竟是申请延期，再老老实实把实验做完，还是想投机取巧，argue一下，就看自己的运气了。一般情况，可以对照审稿人的意见综合权衡。高分文章，最好还是该补的全补了，低分文章，如果你觉得有80%的把握，完全可以凭你的劲爆人品成功拿下审稿人。

（来源：解螺旋、理文编辑）

#往期热文推荐#