如何回复审稿人意见.docx

如何回复审稿人意见.docx

《如何回复审稿人意见.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《如何回复审稿人意见.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

如何回复审稿人意见

如何回复审稿人意见：

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。

5.老师说的4点，确实很有道理。

不过审稿人提出要补充的实验，如果不是非做不可的，还是可以进行解释。

我也为国外的杂志审过稿，有时审稿人即使想接受你的文章，总还要提出一些不足之处，如果文章没有那些不足之处，也许文章就会投给更高IF的杂志了。

所以，如果你真的不想补充实验或者补充很困难，可以合理的解释，一般没问题的。

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）。

我常用的回复格式，呵呵。

Dearreviewer:

Iamverygratefultoyourcommentsforthemanuscript.Accordingwithyouradvice,weamendedtherelevantpartinmanuscript.Someofyourquestionswereansweredbelow.

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！

我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了

DearEditor:

Thankyouforyourkindletterof“......”onNovember**,2005.Werevisedthemanuscriptinaccordancewiththereviewers’comments,andcarefullyproof-readthemanuscripttominimizetypographical,grammatical,andbibliographicalerrors.

Herebelowisourdescriptiononrevisionaccordingtothereviewers’comments.

PartA（Reviewer1）

1.Thereviewer’scomment:

......

Theauthors’Answer:

.....

2.Thereviewer’scomment:

......

Theauthors’Answer:

.....

PartB（Reviewer2）

Theauthors’Answer:

Manygrammaticalortypographicalerrorshavebeenrevised.

Allthelinesandpagesindicatedaboveareintherevisedmanuscript.

Thankyouandallthereviewersforthekindadvice.

Sincerelyyours,

具体例子1：

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！

ReplytothecommentsonJBMR-A-05-0172

Comment:

Reference#10ismissingfromtheIntroductionbutusedmuchlaterinthemanuscript.Shouldthesebeinorderusedinmanuscript?

Reply:

Themissingreferencehasbeenaddedintotherevisedmanuscript.

Comment（continued）:

Whatisthesamplesizeforalltestsperformed?

Reply:

ThesamplesizefordrugreleaseandPCLdegradationtestswas3.0×3.0cm2,withathicknessofabout0.1mmandaweightofabout40mg.Thisdadahavebeenaddedintotherevisedmanuscript.

Comment（continued）:

Figure7.ThereisnoscientificevidencepresentedintheTEMfiguretoconvincethisreviewerofsub-jets.ThisstatementonPage9cannotbemadewithoutclearevidenceduringthejetformation/separation.Figure7isjustalargefiberandsmallfiberfusedtogether,nootherconclusionthanthiscanbemade.

Reply:

Necessarychangeinthestatementshasbeenmadeintherevisedmanuscriptaswellasinthereferredfigureaccordingly.

Comment（continued）:

Table3:

Needstandarddeviationforallvaluesreportednotjustforaselectfew..EquationafterTable3notnecessary.Justreferencemethodused.

Reply:

Doneaccordingly.

Comment（continued）:

Page11:

"fasterweightloss"Whatwasthesamplesize?

Whereisthestatisticalanalysisofthisdata?

Thisreviewerdoesnotseeasignificantdifferenceinanyofthedatapresented,thusweightlosswouldbeconsideredequivalent.

Reply:

Althoughnottoomuchdifferencewasseen,theconclusionthat“theGS/PCLmembraneexhibitedarelativelyfasterweightlosscomparedwiththeRT/PCLmembrane”wasindeedapplicablethrough“one-wayanalysisofvariance（ANOVA）”analysis.

Followingthereviewer’scomment,anewsub-sectionhasbeenaddedtothemanuscripttoaddressthestatisticalanalysisforthedata.

Comment（continued）:

Page12:

Whatisthesamplesizeforreleasedata?

Lookslikeresultsbasedonasamplesizeofone?

NeedstanddeviationsonthedatapresentedinFigure11.

Whywasn'treleaseperformedandcomparedforallelectrospunconditionsinvestigatedotherwise?

Reply:

Threerepeatedtestswereperformedforeachsetofmeasurementsandtheresultingdatawereaveraged.Asstatedintherevisedmanuscript,eachsamplehadasquareareaof3cm2withaslightlydifferentthickness.3

StandarddeviationshavebeenaddedtothedatashowninFig.11.

Thepresentmanuscriptaimedtoshowthatmedicaldrugscanbeencapsulatedinultrafinefibersthroughaco-axialelectrospinningprocess.Thedrugreleasedataintendedtoshowthattheencapsulationwassuccessful.Wedidnotconsideranyspecificapplicationinthispreliminarypaper,andinfactthetwodrugswerejustchosenasmodelillustration.Assuch,thereseemednotnecessarytoperformreleaseexperimentsforallofthemembraneselectrospunwithdifferentconditions（i.e.thecoreconcentrations）

Comment（continued）:

Table3:

Yang'sorYoung'sModulus（page10saysYoung's）.

Reply:

Correctedaccordingly.

Comment（continued）:

Figure11:

Whatisthe%release,notjustconcentration.Whyjustthissmallsampleofreleasedata?

Whereisthereleasedatafortheotherconditions?

Reply:

Unfortunately,wedidnotmeasuretheamountoftheshellmaterialinobtainingthecompositenanofibers.Namely,theflowrateoftheshellsolutionduringtheelectrospinningwasnotaccuratelycontrolledusinganinjectingpump.Hencethe%releasewasnotapplicable.

PleaserefertothepreviousreplyrelatedtoPage12andFigure11fortheremainingcomments.

Weacknowledgethereviewer’scommentsandsuggestionsverymuch,whicharevaluableinimprovingthequalityofourmanuscript.

具体例子2：

Majorcomments:

1.TheauthorsneedtostrengthentheirresultsbyincludingMMP

secretion,andtran-matrigelmigrationbyapositivecontrol

progenitorcellpopulationi.e.enrichedhumanCD34cells

obtainedfrommobilizedPBL,sincethisisamoreclinically

relevantsourceofCD34cellswhichhasalsobeenshownto

secretebothMMP-9andMMP-2（ref.11）.CD34enrichedcells

fromsteadystateperipheralbloodwhichalsosecreteMMPsare

alsoofinterest.

2.Infig1Cpleasespecifywhichcelllinerepresents

MMP-negativecells.Thisneedstobeclarified,aswellasa

betterexplanationofthemethodoftheprotocol.

3.TheELISAresultsarerepresentedas"foldincrease"compared

tocontrol.Instead,wesuggestthatstandardsshouldbeusedand

resultsshouldbepresentedasabsoluteconcentrationsandonly

thencantheseresultsbecomparedtothoseofthezymography.

4.Whendiscussingtheresults,theauthorsshoulddistinguish

clearlybetweenspontaneousmigrationvschemotacticmigration.

Furthermore,thehighspontaneousmigrationobtainedwithcord

bloodCD34cellsshouldbecomparedtomobilizedPBLCD34

enrichedcellsanddiscussed.

5.Theauthorsclaimthattheclonogenicassaywasperformedto

determinetheoptimumconcentrationforinhibitionofMMP

activitybyphenanthrolineandantiMMP-9mAb,howeverthey

shouldclarifythatthisassaycanonlydeterminethetoxicityof

theinhibitorsandnottheiroptimalinhibitoryconcentrations.

Minorcomments:

1.Therearemanyspellingandsyntaxerrors,especiallyinthe

resultsanddiscussion,whichneedcorrection.

a.Ofspecialimportance,isthepercentinhibitionofmigration,

whichisdescribedaspercentofmigration.i.e.pg7:

"Migration

ofCBCD34wasreducedto73.3%?

"Insteadshouldread

"MigrationofCBCD34wasreducedby73.3%?

"

b.Thedegreesymbolneedstobeaddedtothenumbersin

Materialsandmethods.

2.Itwouldbepreferabletocombinefigure1AandB,inorderto

confirmthereliabilityoffig.1Bbyapositivecontrol

（HT1080）.

Answertoreferee1comment:

1.MobilizedperipheralbloodisamoreclinicalsourceofCD34+cells,soitisnecessarytocomparetheMMP-9secretionandtrans-migrationabilityofCBCD34+cellswiththatofmobilizedPBCD34+cells.However,wecouldn'tobtainenoughmobilizedPBtoseparatePBCD34+cellsanddeterminetheMMP-9secretionandmigrationability,sowecouldn’tcomplementthestudyonPBCD34+cellsinthispaper.ResultsobtainedbyJanowska-WieczoreketalfoundthatmobilizedCD34+cellsinperipheralbloodexpressMMP-9.Furthermore,Domenech’sstudyshowedthatMMP-9secretionisinvolvedinG-CSFinducedHPCmobilization.Theirconclusionshavebeenaddedinthediscussion.Inourpresentstudy,ourcentralconclusionfromourdataisthatfreshlyisolatedCD34+stem/progenitorcellsobtainedfromCBproduceMMP-9.

2.MMP-9negativecellusedinfig1CwasJurkatcell.Inzymographicanalysis,MMP-9wasnotdetectedinthemediumconditionedbyJurkatcell.ToexcludethatthecontaminatingcellsmayplayaroleintheobservedMMP-9production,wescreenedthemediaconditionedbydifferentproportionofCBmononuclearcellswithMMP-9negativecellsbyzymography.Thisresultmaybeconfusion.Actually,onlybydetectingthemediumconditionedby2X105CBmononuclearcells（MNC）/ml（sincethepuritiesofCD34+cellaremorethan90%）,itcouldexcludetheMNCrole.Intherevisedmanuscript,weonlydetectedMMP-9activityandantigenlevelinthemediumconditionedby2X105CBmononuclearcells（MNC）/ml.ThereisnoMMP-9secretionbedetectedinthemediumconditionedby2X105CBMNC/ml.ItexcludedthepossibilitythattheMMP-9activityinCBCD34+cellsconditionedmediumisduetothecontaminationbyMNC.

3.Inthisrevisedpaper,wehavedetectedtheMMP-9antigenlevelsbyusingcommercialspecificELISAkits（R&DSystem,sensitivity,0.156ng/ml）.RecombinantMMP-9fromR&DSystemwasusedasastandard.Theresultsareexpressedintheabsoluteconcentration.Theabsoluteconcentrationresulthasbeenaddedinthepaper.AsshowninFig2,MMP-9levelsweredetectableinbothCBCD34+cellconditionedmediumandBMCD34+cellconditionedmedium.However,MMP-9levelwassignificantlyhigherinCBCD34+cellconditionedmediumthaninBMCD34+cellconditionedmedium（0.406±0.133ng/mlversus0.195±0.023ng/ml）.AlthoughgelatinolyticactivitywasnotdetectedinmediaconditionedbyCD34+cellsfromBM,sensitivityofELI