如何回复审稿人意见.docx

1、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

2、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。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.引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，

3、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Dear Editor:Thank you for your kind letter of “.” on November *, 2005. We revised the manuscript

4、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 reviewers comment: .The authors Answer: .2. T

5、he reviewers comment: .The authors Answer: .Part B (Reviewer 2)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,具体例子1：这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是J

6、BMR-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

7、 the sample size for all tests performed?Reply:The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.03.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.Comment (continued):Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence pr

8、esented 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

9、 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 (c

10、ontinued):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 concl

11、usion 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 reviewers comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical a

12、nalysis 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 wasnt release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?Reply

13、: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 3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. 3Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manusc

14、ript 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 we

15、re 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: Yangs or Youngs Modulus (page 10 says Youngs).Reply:Corrected accordingly

16、. 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 f

17、low 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 reviewers comments and suggestion

18、s very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.具体例子2：Major comments: 1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMPsecretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive controlprogenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cellsobtained from mobilize

19、d PBL, since this is a more clinicallyrelevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown tosecrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cellsfrom steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs arealso of interest. 2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line representsMMP-negativ

20、e cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as abetter explanation of the method of the protocol. 3. The ELISA results are represented as fold increase comparedto control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used andresults should be presented as absolute concentrations and onlythen can th

21、ese results be compared to those of the zymography. 4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguishclearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cordblood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enr

22、iched cells and discussed. 5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed todetermine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMPactivity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however theyshould clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity ofthe inhibitors and not their

23、optimal inhibitory concentrations. Minor comments: 1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in theresults 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:Migrationof CB CD34

24、was reduced to 73.3%? Instead should readMigration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%? b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers inMaterials and methods. 2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order toconfirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control(HT1080). Answer

25、 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 couldnt obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cel

26、ls and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldnt 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, Domenechs study showed that MMP-9 secretion is

27、 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 fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In z

28、ymographic 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. T

29、his 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 condi

30、tioned 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 t

31、he 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, M

32、MP-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 (0.4060.133ng/ml versus 0.1950.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELI