SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例.docx

1、SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例.txt精神失常的疯子不可怕，可怕的是精神正常的疯子！附1 : SCI扩展版和SCI核心版收录期刊的区别SCI扩展版（以下简称 SCIE）和SCI核心版（以下简称 SCI）收录期刊还是有区别的， SCI期刊论文全部被 SCI收录，SCIE期刊论文只是部分被 SCI收录，这就是有的 SCIE期刊一年 有几百篇论文，却只有几十篇甚至十几篇论文被 SCI收录的原因。具体到SCIE期刊上的一篇论文能否被SCI收录，还是要看美国ISI发布的报告，现在科技部信息研究所也公布这一报 告，很多图书馆的 SCI检索机构也可以查。不过在国内，很多单位都把

2、 SCI期刊论文和SCIE期刊论文一视同仁，只要发表在 SCI期 刊或SCIE期刊上，该论文都当作SCI收录，这是管理者的无能抑或无为就不得而知了。 但就我们单位而言（国内 TOP10高校），这两者还是区别对待的，论文是否 SCI收录还是看CISI 的报告或SCI检索机构的证附2：精华如何回复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

3、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），

4、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 f

5、or the manuscript. According with your advice,we ame nded the releva nt part in manu script. Some of your questio ns were an swered 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

6、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 madeextensive modification on the originalmanu script. Here, we attached revised manu script

7、. i n the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A docume nt an sweri ng every questi on from the referees wasalso summarized and en closed. A revised manu script. with the correct ion secti ons red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Sho

8、uld you have any questi ons, please con tact 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Thank you for your kind letter ofmanu script. in accorda nee with the reviewersDear Editor:on November *, 2005. We revised the comme nts, and carefully proof-readgrammatical, and b

9、ibliographical according to the reviewers comments.the manu script. to mini mize typographical,errors.Here below is our description on revisions comme nt:Part A (Reviewer 1). The reviewerPart B(Reviewer 2)Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pages in dicated a

10、bove are in the revised manu script.Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.Sincerely yours,*精华如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(2)一个回复的例子(已接收)Major comme nts:1.The authors n eed to stre ngthe n their results by in clud ing MMP secreti on, andtran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell po

11、pulation i.e.enriched humanCD34cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinically releva nt source of CD34 cells which has also bee n show n to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 en riched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of in teres

12、t.2.In fig1Cplease specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needsto be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol.3.The ELISA results are represe nted as fold in crease compared to con trol. In stead, we suggest that standards should be used and resul

13、ts should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography.4.When discuss ing the results, the authors should dist in guish clearly betwee n spontan eous migrati on vs chemotactic migrati on .Furthermore, the high spontan eous migration o

14、btained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 en riched 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

15、 that this assay can only determ ine the toxicity of the in hibitors and not their optimal in hibitory concen trati ons.Minor comme nts:1.There are manyspelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion,which n eed correct ion.a.Of special importanee, is the percent inhibition of m

16、igration,which is describedas percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:Migration of CBCD34was reduced to 73.3%? Instead should read Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?b.The degree symbol n eeds to be added to the nu mbers in Materials and methods.2.It would be preferable to combine figure1Aand B, in order to confirm th