SCI回复审稿人的回信技巧.docx

1、SCI回复审稿人的回信技巧SCI回复审稿人的回信技巧SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧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。首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。

2、这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍信分成三部分，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

3、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 o

4、f 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

5、 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.LOA6: All typos have been removed.=分页=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.=分页=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 Bs research

6、groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and Bs 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

7、，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）”=分页=To Reviewer 2:意见1：图2太小。We have enlarged Figu

8、re 2, see LOA 4.意见2：第3页有个错别字。We have removed all typos, see LOA5.=分页=总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。来源：pitlord999小木虫如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见如何回复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

9、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

10、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 m

11、anuscript. 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

12、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

13、 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 questio

14、ns, 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

15、, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers comments. Part A (Reviewer 1). The reviewers comment: .The authors Answer: .2. The reviewers comment: .The authors Answer: .Part B(Reviewer 2)1. The reviewers comment: .The authors Answer:

16、.2. The reviewers 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,*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 comments:1. The

17、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 sec

18、rete 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.

19、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 s

20、hould 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 deter

21、mine 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 error

22、s, 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 de

23、gree 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,

24、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+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldnt complement the study

25、 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 involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussi

26、on. 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

27、 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 mono

28、nuclear 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 me

29、dium 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 the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156n

30、g/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 condition

31、ed 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 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 CD