从090807开始动笔到091018初稿完成，边做边写边写边做；（现在回过头来看看，当初写的别提有多糟糕了，虽然之前有写过一篇中文） 从091018老板第一次修改到091230第一次投稿，前前后后在老板的指导下改了9次；（还好，那时候实验室的文章不太多，往返比较快，呵呵） NO.1 杯具的时光是短暂的：09年的最后一天投到了Water research，十天以后有消息（大致的意思是说我们所做的与该期刊不符，被编辑否了，没有送审） NO.2 经历了慢慢的等待：100114投到Applied Catalysis: B Environmental，经历了January 14 with editor——February 19 under review——April 28 under review——May 18，2010，completed rejected。（三个审稿人回来两个审稿意见，Reviewer #1: major revision；Reviewer #2：If the authors want to publish it at App. Catal. B, they need to add more experimental results and discussions，实际上也应该是个major revision，结果编辑给rejected了，4各月零4天等到了这么个结果，杯具呀！）不过审稿人的意见还是蛮中肯的，接下来的几个月先是忙着硕士论文的答辩、办一些毕业手续、参加一些毕业活动，然后按照审稿人的建议进行了修改，补做了一个表征和一部分实验，不知不觉就到了9月份。（这个期刊也不都是这么慢，得看审稿人的速度了，我师姐投了一篇不到3个月就收了） NO.3 Sep 5 2010，Applied Catalysis: B Environmental again，结果可想而知，3天杯具，编辑的回信中提到：“ That is not the way you can resubmit your paper once completely rejected. Since no rebuttal system exists in APCATB and only way you can do is to send the paper again after extensive revision on the basis of the reviewers' comments directly to me at my Email address. Then, I will decide whether it can be re-resubmitted or not. ”貌似说我们没有直接email他。 NO.4 目前Accept的期刊Environmental pollution，这个期刊要求投稿之前先将摘要email编辑，同意之后才可以再投，老板给纳米材料领域的编辑发了个email，不久，编辑回信可投，于Oct 28, 2010投稿，记得好像是11年01月12日左右收到老板邮件有消息了（三个审稿人，reviewer #1：major revision；reviewer #2：This is a generall well written manuscript，although there are some relatively minor English/grammatical errors. I think the manuscript is worthy of publication however I do have some comments.我理解为minor revision；reviewer #3：major revision. 最后，编辑让major，还需要review again。看看时间快寒假了，去年寒假弄这篇，今年寒假还这篇，⊙﹏⊙b汗，年后（应该是初十）早早回校，和老板讨论修改后于3月7日修改稿返回。又过了将近两个月5月5日老板email，编辑email中说：“I am very pleased to inform you that the reviewers recommend that your manuscript should be accepted for publication, after satisfactory revision.”让小修，我又反复改了几次，正赶上老板去瑞士出差一个周，回来后Dr.Martin来访，又赶上博士硕士答辩，还有一个ETC的稿件要审（据老板说已经催过几次了，呵呵），还有几个基金要审（估计也快到期了），实验室需要修改的文章也越来越多（目前硕士也很少写中文的了），事情太多，一拖再拖，我是一催再催（O(∩_∩)O~当然要委婉点），终于在11年06月06日将修改稿返回去了，又是盼（不过，估计是差不多了），又是一个十天06月16日收到老板email说是Accept了O(∩_∩)O~！ 感想：回想这一年十个月零九天，感慨颇多，在论文的不断修不断改中也学到了许多，也许这就是一个慢慢成长的过程吧！ 插曲：和我同时投文章的还有一师兄和一师弟，我们三兄弟道路不同结果却极为相似，都是自己的第一篇SCI，都经历了一年多的时间，虽然投过稿的期刊不尽相同，但都经历了投-拒-投-再拒-再投……这么个过程，最后都于10年10月前后投到了EP（Environmental pollution），最先有结果的是师兄的，一个半月直接接收了（还是师兄啊），然后就是师弟了，两个半月小修之后就收了，悲催的我这时候还在等review again的消息呢:(。道路是曲折的，前途是光明的O(∩_∩)O哈！最终都瓜熟落地了bless！Go on fighting！ 不伦不类写了一大堆，以此来纪念我的第一篇SCI！看看时间已是凌晨，该睡了_! ——二零一一年凌晨于南开大学寝室 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749111003496 Simultaneous adsorption and degradation of γ-HCH by nZVI Cu bimetallic nanopart.pdf
面向中国和日本科研人员的本地支持 美国物理联合会 (AIP) (www.aip.org) 和Edanz Group Ltd. ( 理文编辑 ) 与2011年3月21日签署合作协议，今后向AIP出版期刊投稿的作者在选择Edanz时会享受到更便捷、优惠的服务，中国和日本的科研作者将得到本地支持。新闻原文请见： AIP and Edanz Work to Support “AIP始终致力于为作者提供有意义的服务，”AIP期刊出版人Mark Cassar先生说。“为了实现这个承诺，我们的服务必须要突破常规，做到服务语言的本地化和服务时间的本地化。Edanz拥有专业的团队，能够帮助我们的作者提高写作质量，提升稿件的整体表达，出版过程中所涉及到的各个环节均将受益于此。” Edanz的英语母语编辑具有丰富的经验，专业背景覆盖了大部分的学术领域，其中也包括AIP出版的期刊系列。除了可以帮助希望向AIP投稿的作者修改稿件外，Edanz还能提供一系列其他服务，如撰写附信、回复审稿意见等等。对于AIP的作者，Edanz将提供10%的优惠折扣。 “2010年AIP北京办事处的成立无疑表明了AIP对于今日亚洲学术研究重要性的认可，”Edanz Group Ltd.董事长Kerry Greer先生说，“Edanz是唯一一个完全扎根在中国、为全球作者提供学术英语语言润色服务的机构，在中国这个关键的、迅速发展的市场中，Edanz已经做好了助力AIP作者的准备。”AIP和Edanz将针对如何写好学术论文共同开展培训项目。 美国物理联合会是代表了超过13.5万名科学家、工程师和教育者的由10个物理科学学会组成的联盟，它是全世界物理科学领域科学信息的最大的出版者。AIP还在教育和学生服务、科学交流、政府关系、科学和工程专业人士职业服务、统计研究、行业推广以及物理学和其他学科历史信息等方面提供有用的资源的专业的知识。AIP为科学学会和科学与工程学会的出版者提供伙伴解决方案，它是学术期刊电子出版领域的领导者。目前AIP出版13种期刊(journals.aip.org)和两份杂志 ，包括它的旗舰出版物《今日物理》，以及AIP会议文集系列。它的网络出版平台Scitation收录了来自28个学术团体出版社的190份学术期刊、会刊和学术团体电子书籍的160万篇论文。AIP推出了首个国际物理学界社交网络网站UniPHY，它集合了超过30万名科学家的信息，为全球科研人员的协作提供了平台。 Edanz Group Ltd.于1995年和2006年先后在日本和中国( 理文编辑 )成立公司，致力于提供英语学术文章的语言润色及相关服务。Edanz可以帮助作者提高文章的语言质量，达到国际期刊的发表标准，具有专业背景的英语母语编辑可以覆盖AIP所有期刊系列的学术领域。Edanz是唯一一家在日本和中国都设有办事机构的国际编辑服务公司，十分了解希望成功发表文章的英语非母语科学家所面临的挑战。
【转】英文论文审稿意见汇总 收藏 转自‘海岩秋沙’的QQ空间： 以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。与大家一起分享。 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 ◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study. ◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work. 10、严谨度问题： MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that. 11、格式（重视程度）： ◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples. ◆ Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen. 12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）： 有关语言的审稿人意见： ◆ It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. ◆ The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences. ◆ As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are pro blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. ◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i n English or whose native language is English. ◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte r of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ? ◆ the quality of English needs improving. 来自编辑的鼓励： Encouragement from reviewers: ◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be en edited because the subject is interesting. ◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat erials. ◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication. 本文来自CSDN博客，转载请标明出处： http://blog.csdn.net/chenyusiyuan/archive/2008/12/03/3437577.aspx
事情是这样的，半年前，按审稿人要求，对文章进行了全面修改并提交。不久，主编来信告知，文章被拒，理由是英文不过关。 对这个理由，我们很质疑，因为投稿之前，稿件已经专业编辑公司修订。为此，我们做了再投的决定。大概过了2周，主编来信说，文章不再送审，要求是把整个稿件的修改过程说明清楚。从此，没了音讯。期间，我催问了几次，并做了撤稿决定。但因没有得到恢复，稿子还是没敢改投。茫然无措时，昨晚主编终于来信了。从三投到现在，差不多5个月了，真是漫长啊。 主编来信如下： Based on the advice received, the Editor has decided that your manuscript will be reconsidered after you have carried out the corrections as suggested by him. We strongly suggest that you use professional editing service to revise your manuscript. If you agree we will arrange to have it professionally edited at your expense. If it can be edited to the point where it can be reconsidered, we will make a final decision at that point. We estimate that this will cost approximately $350. All we can guarantee is that the English will be acceptable. You will have to pay regardless of our final decision since we cannot commit ourselves at this point to publishing the manuscript. 这是否意味着修改后接受？还是其他？这样的决定意见常见吗？ 我应该采取何种措施？
［题外话］最近读了很多博主的文章，深有感触，所以将我以前没有任何价值，甚至是污染人们眼睛的博文统统删除了。现在我想发一些我认为有价值的博文，尽量让大家觉得看我的博文不是在浪费时间。 我是个论文新手，请不要笑话我！ Dear editor and reviewers, We really appreciate your earnest and careful review of my manuscript entitled as XXXXXXXXX. The language was polished as required and the constructive comments from both reviewers were appreciated and carefully considered with a complete revision. Please check the revised manuscript and responses below for more details. Again, many thanks for your efforts making our manuscript much better! Best regards. Guo-Ming Shen, Ph.D., School of Food Science and Biotechnology Zhejiang Gongshang University 149 Jiaogong Road, Hangzhou, 310012 China. Reviewer: 1 Recommendation: Accept paper with major/complete revision Comments:Review result of MS jph.201000310 by Shen et al.This study was to examine the responses of a high Cd accumulating rice mutant to Cd exposure, including Cd contents, antioxidants, antioxidative enzyme activity, in roots. A mutant has been successfully obtained cadH-5. Although the physiological and biochemical investigations have been done in rice upon exposure to Cd, it is still interesting for using a high Cd accumulating rice mutant to study of Cd responses.Because authors did not cite references mentioning the responses of shoots of rice seedlings to Cd administration in root system, the readers do not have any idea for why only roots were assayed. Authors have to explain this in the Introduction. Another concern is that the backgrounds on the relationships between Cd and rice, and between Cd and oxidative stress in rice. It is not easy for readers to understand why this investigation is necessary. Several experimental methods have not been carefully described. It can not be accepted in the present form. The data are not well calculated and presented in Figures. For example, in the Figure 2 and Figure 4 b, the Y-axis was drawn from a value 0? I strongly suggested that other Figures are also revised. In addition, because bar was chosen for Figure 3 and Figure 4a, the data of Y-axis should be from 0. It is a mistake.It needs a major revision. All comments should be considered before it can be accepted for publication inthe Journal. Response: We have carefully revised the manuscript, with all problems and concerns mentioned above have been considered and solved (see the revised manuscript for details), such as the relationships between Cd and rice, and between Cd and oxidative stress in rice, and all figures. Below we listed our responses to each comment one by one. Abstract1. P. 2, line 12-13: But, Cd accumulation in roots organelles varied. needs to be clarified. It is not adequate for the use of accumulation here. Response: We should have used the 'contents' instead of 'accumulation'. We corrected all misuses of accumulation in the text. 2. P. 2, line 16: The full name of GSH/GSSG and ASC/DHA is needed in the Abstract, although these have been mentioned in the Introduction and Materials and Methods?Response: The full names were added as your request. Introduction1. The Introduction is needed to be re-written, especially the backgrounds on the relationships between Cd and rice, and between Cd and oxidative stress in rice. It is not easy for readers to understand why this investigation is necessary. Response: We have re-written this section and highlighted the changes with track. 2. P. 3, line 9: changed to Cd can also affect different metabolic processes, Response: Corrected. Materials and Methods1. It needs to be carefully revised. Many usages and sentences are not adequate. Some is listed as follows.2. P. 4, line 12: japonica - Japonica 3. P. 4, line 23: (photo flux density of 500 Ms-1m-2). - (photon flux density of 500 molm-2s-1). The light source should be also indicated. 4. P. 5, lines 8-9: with the wild type Kasa (Oryza sativa ssp. Indica - with the wild type Indica rice variety Kasa 5. P. 5, line 15: Hydroponic Culture : Authors stated that 0 d as the control. According to the design and results of the present study, the data of 0 d were the initial value as the control, that is, the initial control, and for example, WT is the control material in Figure 2. So, 0 d (as control) is not adequate. Authors have to correct it. 6. P. 5, line 17: 0 Mm (as control) - 0 mM (as control) P. 5, line 20: For, the roots were cut, frozen in liquid nitrogen, some free Cd2+ may be carried on the surface of root tissue. In general, to assay the Cd contents in tissues treated with Cd2+, tissues will be washed with Milli-Q water to remove the surface Cd2+. Authors should clarify whether the roots are rinsed with Milli-Q water or not. 8. P. 5, line 23: Because the uptake of Cd was not really calculated in the present study, so changed Cd uptake - Cd contents P. 6, line 2: were measured AAS directly - were measured by AAS directly 10. P. 6, line 25: For H2O2 determination, the unit was mol?g-1 of dry weight (DW). Authors did not show how the root dry weight was determined or estimated? It has to be indicated. 11. P. 8, Enzyme Assay: changes absorption coefficient - extinction coefficient in this section P. 8, line 11: changes to potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.8) containing P. 8, line 15: changed to Aliquot of the supernatant (50 ?L) was . (also in line 24) P. 9 Statistical Analysis: No statistical method has been indicated. It seems that only t-test has been approached in this study. If yes, it has to be indicated here or in Figure legend.Response: All the typos and grammars (from 1-14) were corrected as suggested. Results and Discussion1. Changed H-5 - cadH-5 in Figure 1. P. 9, line 17: 0.75 mM Cd - Cd of 0.76 mM Response: They have been corrected as suggested. P. 9, lines 17-20: Why authors stated it is reasonable for the choice of 83.25 g Cdg-1 as screen level. They said tat this is based on the results of (Bingham et al., 1975) that rice was still alive on the concentration of 640 g Cd/g soil. Because these are two different units, it is hard for readers to make sense. It has to be clarified and re-written. Response: We completely agree with the reviewer. It is unnecessary statement, and we have deleted this sentence. 4. P. 10, line 5: mM? Check the concentration unit is the Italic font? P. 10, line 7: statistical significant, indicated - statistical significance, indicating P. 10, line 8: changed to a relatively high Cd accumulation mutant P. 10, Figure 2: the Y-axis is drawn from a value 0? It is a big mistake. Authors have to check their data carefully. P. 10, line 9: Cd-PC: In general, PC was calculated from non-protein thiol. But authors did not indicate this in Materials and Methods. (move P. 11, lines 27-28 to Materials and Mehods) P. 10, lines 8-13: Because the shoots or straws or leaves were not the materials for the assay of Cd contents, it is not known whether Cd contents will be relatively high in shoots in mutant as compared to WT shoots. I am wondering that can authors state that the straw is often fed to ruminants; thus, the mutant cadH-5 is a potential hazardous material? It seems to me that authors have over-explained or over-extended their results. By the way, because authors would like to explain the responses of rice, the cited references (lines 10-11) should be restricted to rice instead of other plants. 10. P. 10, line 14: Specify the tissue as root: The subcellular distribution of Cd showed - The subcellular distribution of Cd in roots showed. P. 10, line 15: The increase in Cd - The increase in Cd contents 12. P. 11, lines 4-26: Several references on H2O2 and Cd toxicity in rice have not been cited and discussed. For example, Shah K, Kumar RG, Verma S, et al. 2001. PLANT SCIENCE 161: 1135-1144; Kuo MC, Kao CH. 2004. BOTANICAL BULLETIN OF ACADEMIA SINICA (presently Botanical Studies) 45: 291-299; Hsu YT, Kao CH. 2007. PLANT AND SOIL 298: 231-241, 300: 137-147; Chao YY, Hsu YT, Kao CH. 2009. PLANT AND SOIL 318: 37-45 13. P. 11, lines 27-30 and P. 12, lines 1-3: PC has been well known in heavy metal detoxification. Authors did not cite references and discuss here, therefore it is strongly recommended authors to compare their results with published data in references, even in plants other than rice .（呵呵！审稿人估计就是这个人，不过不引用他的文章是我的不对，是我忽视了他的工作。） 14. P. 12, line 2: Revise For, Cd can combine phytochelatins, and it should be phytochelatins can bind Cd 15. The data of Y-axis in Figure 3 should be from 0, because it is bar.Reference:P. 19, line 14: Italic font for Brassica juncea P. 19, lines 17-19: Capitolize the first character of each word? Response: Thanks for the reviewers careful insights! All the comments and suggestions (4-15 from Results and Discussion, References) were carefully considered and revised accordingly. Reviewer: 2 Recommendation: Accept paper with major/complete revision Comments:Environmental and Experimental BotanyManuscript Number: EEB-D-09-00400 ( We were a little confused by the Manuscript Numberhere (EEB-D-09-00400). I thought My MS Number is jph.201000310 .（晕死了，审稿人将我们文章投的刊物搞错了） )Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXX Guo-Ming Shen,et al. The paper bases on the fact that an environmental stress such as heavy metal stress, NaCl salinity nutrient deficiency can lead to an increase of cellular damage due to increased ROS generation. The relationship between stress, antioxidative activity and tolerance was lately reported in several crops and has become a major topic for research. However, studies related to Oryza sativa antioxidative system towards Cd stress conditions are scare. The authors showed impressively by comparing a wiltype (WT) with a mutant (cadH-5) that oxidative stress plays an important role at Cd detoxification and that under these conditions several antioxidative mechanisms act together in a distinct pattern.Beside the interesting story of this paper I have also some criticism according to this basic aspect. The selected parameters do not allow a clear causal explanation for differences in tolerances between wildtype and mutant! Heavy metal stress is a multifactorial burden for the plants and the ions play the (!) major role if you want to distinguish between Ca or Mg deficiency and Cd toxicity. I would emphasize to add results about ion relations to optimize the discussion. Response: Thanks for your insightful suggestions! However, heavy metal stress is a complex biological process, we can not present ion relation results in this paper due to space limit. Recently, Liu et al. (2003a, 2003b see ref.) demonstrated that neither sensitive nor tolerant rice cultivars/genotypes had significant correlation between Cd and Mg. Furthermore, in this experiment all element is excessive in rice culture solution, we believe that Cd can not cause Ca or Mg deficiency in rice. Using GeoChem-EZ software (Shaff et al., 2010. Plant Soil 330, 207-214) results as following: Ca ( 87.54 % as a free metal; 0.16 % complexed with PO4; 0.73 % complexed with Citr; 0.01 % complexed with Cl; 11.57 % complexed with SO4) Mn +2 86.99 % as a free metal 1.03 % complexed with Citr .48 % complexed with Cl 11.49 % complexed with SO4 Cd 56.17 % as a free metal .04 % complexed with PO4 23.36 % in solid form with PO4 .71 % complexed with Citr 7.91 % complexed with Cl .06 % complexed with NO3 11.76 % complexed with SO4 Zn 73.88 % as a free metal .25 % complexed with PO4 15.61 % complexed with Citr .26 % complexed with Cl .09 % complexed with NO3 9.76 % complexed with SO4 .14 % complexed with OH- Mg 89.85 % as a free metal .03 % complexed with PO4 .57 % complexed with Citr .12 % complexed with Cl 9.43 % complexed with SO4 K 99.19 % as a free metal .03 % complexed with Cl .77 % complexed with SO4 Additionally are the described antioxidative responses a consequence of problems with or at least connected to the CO2/H2O gas exchange. I am astonished that the authors did not consider this at all! I would expect to find this aspect much more pronounced in the introduction and in the discussion. I would also emphasize to include results about CO2/H2O gas exchange (photosynthesis) or at least about chlorophyll fluorescence. This aspect is conspicuously missing apart from that impressing list of results. Response: We should have added something we already knew about CO2/H2O gas exchange in this manuscript. Former experiments in our Lab demonstrated (He et al. 2008, Photosynthetica 46, 466-470) that in the sensitive rice mutant (now named as cadB-1) had lower net photosynthetic rate (PN), transpiration rate (E), and stomatal conductance (gs) than WT rice, however, it had higher intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), indicating that non-stomatal factors accounted for the inhibition of PN. Maximal photochemical efficiency of photosystem 2 (Fv/Fm), effective quantum yield of PS2 (PS2), and photochemical quenching (qP) decreased much in the mutant under Cd stress. There is another similarity between introduction and discussion which is really annoying: The style of writing is extremely static and there are several grammar mistakes! But let me discuss the content of both chapters:1) The uptake by divalent ion transporters is just mentioned but its consequence not considered at all. Response: We deleted the sentence Cd is taken up by divalent ion transporters in the roots. in the chapter of Introduction. And we will further discuss this in our next manuscript as Interaction of Cd and mineral nutrients for uptake and accumulation in rice Cd sensitive cadB-1 and Cd tolerant cadH-5 mutants. 2) The applied aspect or better the intension of this work is not explained sufficiently. If you produce a more tolerant but at the same time more Cd- accumulating rice mutant you also develop a more toxic food. Wouldnt it make more sense to select and develop an avoidance type? Response: In the revised MS, we presented it as The mutant might be a good material for phytoremediation in heavy metal contamination rice planted area. 3) Your major argument for ROS stress is that Cd can indirectly activate the plasmamembrane reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase and generate reactive oxygen species. However, the results of NADP, NADPH (or the ratios of) do not fit perfectly to your results of the enzymes and substrates involved in the Halliwell-Asada system (see also page 12 line 21 to 25, page 14 line 23 to 30)?! Response: We agree with the reviewer and have re-written this section. Please check it for more details in the text. 4) In addition to this Achilles' heel you argue that ASC-GSH cyle was more inhibited in the WT than in the cadH-5 mutant. I would like to know how you can distinguish between a higher expression in the mutant and an inhibition in the wildtype? This static system is visible in all chapters, in the material and methods such as in the discussion. It is common to use such a static system in the chapter results, so it is there not as annoying as in the other chapters! In the discussion it is nothing else but a list of a short interpretation of every single result one after the other in the same sequence as in the chapter results. Partially important bits of the discussion are missing: This is also the case e.g. for the interpretation of the differences between ROS and NADPH development (page 14 line 5 to 10). Please add this discussion and in this aspect also some essential literature!The single discussions are incomplete, they do not give a survey of the relevant corresponding literature and they do not give a complete survey about potential relationships and the conception of causal relation. Therefore the overall message remains far behind the potential of the shown results!! I have also my problems to understand the direct connection to the interrogation and importance of the subcellular distribution analysis of Cd. If you include it to the text, it should be discussed in a comprehensible manner. This is not done at all. The reason is probably a missing link in the argumentation chain. This could be the connection to other divalent ions! Response: Appreciate for the comments. We realized this and have re-written the section of Results and Discussion. I am completely happy about the used statistics with one exception. I cannot comprehend the number of replicates used! Please add this information (number of cultures etc.). Response: The numbers of replicates used were added in the text. At the end just some formal aspect: The authors should control critical the grammar of their text (such as at page 2 line 12 or page 3 line 20 and 23. In general, the paper is clear and well-written although it would help to ask a native English speaker to improve the grammar! However, because of the reasons mentioned above it is suitable for publication just after major corrections. Response: Thanks for your suggestions. We got some native English speakers to improve the language. 看到没有，这两个审稿人多认真，是他们在指导我写论文。国内的所谓博导多半不会指导学生这样写文章吧！ 所以博士生们，你们的导师如不参与写作、修改论文，我建议将文章投向德国刊物，看他们多认真！
今天早晨看到文章审稿意见回来了，几多欢喜几多愁，有哪位高人可指点迷津，告诉我修改接受的胜算有多少？ 意见如下： REFEREES REPORT Paper: The effect of grazing on plant species richness on the Qinghai Plateau, Tibet Authors: Jianjun Cao, Nicholas M. Holden, Xiao-Tao Lu and Guozhen Du Overall assessment This very short paper presents data on some very interesting differences in plant species diversity in relation to relatively short changes in grazing patterns. The finding that single household grazing reduces species diversity is interesting but counterintuitive. From this point of view, the paper is a worthwhile addition to the scientific literature albeit somewhat rather localised. Given that English is not the first language of the senior author, the English expression is good but needs some further editing. Scientific standard The general standard of this paper would be acceptable for publication. However, I believe that the paper could be shortened because some of the information on the background to the changes in management is not really relevant to the paper. The paper, in itself, is sound but I believe that the data are insufficient for a full publication. Specific comments There are a number of other points that need to be considered: 1. The introduction gives too much information relative to the overall study. Some reduction would be required. 2. More detail of the quadrat sampling is required. 3. Table 1 needs to be completely reorganised. There should be 3 columns one for species names and the others for values. As it is now, the reader has to compare the same species on different lines. 4. Given that this paper presents data from a management change, will these results be used to further change the land management policy? Recommendation I recommend that this paper could be accepted for publication in Grass and Forage Science but only as a technical note or even as a short communication after revision. I suggest that this revision be undertaken in light of the comments made above.
1 如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 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。 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，而想改投另外高档杂志----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），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: 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. 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 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 questions, 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, 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. The reviewers comment: ...... The authors Answer: ..... ... ... Part B (Reviewer 2) 1. The reviewers comment: ...... The authors Answer: ..... 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, *** 一个回复的例子(已接收) Major comments: 1. The 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 secrete 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 fig 1C please 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. 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 should 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 determine 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 errors, 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 degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods. 2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and 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, 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 couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells 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 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 zymographic 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. This 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 conditioned 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 the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (RD System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from RD 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 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 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 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood. 5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay. Minor comments: 1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected. 2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures. 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！ Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172 Comment: 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 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 presented 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 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 (continued): 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 conclusion 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 analysis 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 wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise? Reply: 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 3?3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11. The present manuscript 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 were 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: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's). Reply: Corrected accordingly. 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 flow 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 suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
Dr. Daneil McGowan论文写作系列第十讲 —— Responding to peer reviewers: dealing with rejection Dr. Daneil McGowan 论文写作系列的中文版本终于与大家见面了，希望大家继续支持！译文见下方。 Your papers will sometimes be rejected. It is inevitable. The percentage of papers that is accepted and published without the need for any revisions is very small, and even the best scientists, writing up the best science, will face rejection from journals or the need to make revisions before their paper is considered acceptable for publication. Rather than thinking of rejection from your target journal and requests for major revisions as a negative experience, it is important to realize that this is an integral part of the publication process that exists to make your paper as robust and complete as possible before it joins the ‘collective knowledge’ as part of the literature. There are many different possible reasons for rejection from a journal, and most of these have been described in previous tips in this tips series. For example, if you submitted your manuscript to an inappropriate journal it is likely you will receive a rejection letter without the paper even being sent to review. By selecting an appropriate journal (see tip on journal selection ) you will increase the chances that your manuscript will be sent out for review. Similarly, a poor cover letter might result in immediate rejection without review, so submitting your manuscript with a good cover letter is essential (see tip on cover letter development ). Failure to follow the instructions set out in the target journal’s Guide for Authors is another possible reason for rejection and considered insulting to the journal editors, although it is likely that you will simply receive an invitation to resubmit in the correct format. Other reasons for rejection include flawed study design , poor written language , inappropriate or incompletely explained methodology or statistical tests , incorrect description or overstatement of results, lack of balance or detail in the introduction and/or discussion, or simply a lack of novelty (for example, if your study simply repeats something that has already been done before), significance or relevance. By critically analyzing your paper prior to submission, and considering all of the items that peer reviewers will look at, you will hopefully be able to identify any problems in advance. By following the advice in the tips in this tips series, you will speed up the process from initial submission to publication and make the stages in between considerably less stressful. Therefore, it is worthwhile getting your paper into the best possible form before submitting it anywhere to minimize the likelihood of rejection. In considering peer review and how to address it, it is helpful to think about how a peer reviewer would have approached your paper. Different journals will ask different things of peer reviewers, but in general they will be checking for the following aspects of good science and scientific writing, and asked to comment whenever any of these criteria are not satisfactorily met in the submitted manuscript: Significance What is the importance of the findings to researchers in the field? Are the findings of general to interest to researchers in related and broader fields? Novelty Are the claims in the paper sufficiently novel to warrant publication? Does the study represent a conceptual advance over previously published work? Introduction Does the introduction provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem/hypotheses? Are the reasons for performing the study clearly defined? Are sufficient and appropriate references cited to justify the work performed? Are the study objectives clearly defined? Methods/Technical rigor Are the methods used appropriate to the aims of the study? Is sufficient information provided for a capable researcher to reproduce the experiments described? Are any additional experiments required to validate the results of those that were performed? Are there any additional experiments that would greatly enhance the quality of this paper? Are appropriate references cited where previously established methods are used? Results/Statistics Are the results clearly explained and presented in an appropriate format? Do the figures and tables show essential data or are there any that could easily be summarized in the text? Is any of the data duplicated in the graphics and/or text? Are the figures and tables easy to interpret? Are there any additional graphics that would add clarity to the text? Have appropriate statistical methods been used to test the significance of the results? Discussion Are all possible interpretations of the data considered or are there alternative hypotheses that are consistent with the available data? Are the findings properly described in the context of the published literature? Are appropriate references cited in meeting the above criterion? Are the limitations of the study discussed Conclusion Are the conclusions of the study supported by appropriate evidence or are the claims exaggerated? Are the significance/applicability/implications of the findings clearly discussed? Literature cited Is the literature cited balanced or are there important studies not cited, or other studies disproportionately cited? Journal selection Is the target journal appropriate? Language Is the manuscript clearly written so as to be understandable by researchers not in the immediate field? When you receive a letter of rejection and peer review reports from the journal editor it is important that you carefully study all of the comments (from the editor as well as the reviewers), address these in your manuscript as appropriate, and prepare a detailed response. It is usual to return a revised manuscript and response letter (it is also acceptable to separate the cover letter and responses into different files), and these normally need to be returned within a set period of time or the revised manuscript will be considered as a new submission. It is essential that you respond to all of the points made by the editor and/or reviewers, even if you disagree with them. If you do disagree with a point that has been made, you should provide a polite and scientifically solid rebuttal. This might take the form of a reference to a particular paper that supports your statement (such a paper might need to be added to the reference list of your manuscript if it isn’t already cited), an explanation of why an experiment was performed in a particular way, or an explanation of why you didn’t perform additional experiments recommended by the reviewer. Whatever you do, do not ignore or overlook comments, because this will only lead to delays. Your paper will not be published until all comments are appropriately addressed. The best format for a response letter is to paste in the comments made by the editor and reviewers and write your response beneath each comment. Use different font styles (for example, normal and italics) to differentiate comments from responses. When referring to changes in the text provide the page and line numbers so that these changes can quickly be identified. Copy the new or modified text into the letter so it is immediately clear how your changes address the comment. It is also usual to distinguish major changes in the text in some way, for example, with yellow highlight and/or underline and strikethrough fonts, to make them easy to identify. Finally, if additional analyses or experiments are required to satisfy the editor or reviewers, you should perform them and add the data to your manuscript; these serve to make the final paper stronger and will increase the chances of eventual publication. Example Checklist Don’t take rejection personally; the object is to make your paper stronger and more reliable Address all points raised by the editor and/or reviewers by revising the manuscript and showing the changes in your letter Perform any additional experiments or analyses requested unless you feel that they would not add to the strength of your paper (in which case you should provide a rebuttal) Provide a polite and scientifically solid rebuttal to any points or comments you disagree with Differentiate comments and responses in the letter file by using different font styles Identify major revisions in the text, made in response to peer review comments, with highlight, underline and strikethrough fonts Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the requested time period to avoid your paper being treated as a new submission 回复审稿人：冷静应对拒稿 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。 期刊拒稿有各种原因，大多数在本系列讲座的前文中已经提及。 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(参见 第六讲“选择合适的目标期刊” 中的注意事项)。同理，拙劣的投稿信也可能造成不经审稿便直接拒稿(参见第三讲“ 如何写出吸引读者的‘cover letter’” 中的注意事项)。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。照着本讲座系列中的经验来做，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。 重要性 结果对该领域的重要性是什么？ 结果是否对会受到相关和更广范围的研究者关注？ 新颖性 文中的主张是否足够新颖、因此值得发表？ 研究是否在已有发表工作基础上取得进展？ 引言 是否提供充分的背景信息，让非本领域读者能理解研究问题/假说？ 研究的理由是否定义清楚？ 为论证本研究工作所引文献是否充分恰当？ 研究目的是否定义清楚？ 方法/技术严谨性 所用方法对研究目的是否适当？ 叙述的实验信息是否完整，能让其他研究者重复？ 是否另需实验来验证该研究结果？ 补充实验是否能显著提高该文质量？ 对于已确立的方法，其引用文献是否适当？ 结果/统计 结果解释是否清晰，表达方式是否恰当？ 图表信息是否必要，是否更易于用文字表达？ 插图和正文内部或二者之间数据有无重复？ 图表是否易于解读？ 是否需要补充插图以增加清晰性？ 有否使用适当的统计学方法来检验结果的显著性？ 讨论 有否考虑数据的所有可能解释，是否存在也能解释数据的备择假设？ 有无在现有文献背景基础上适当说明结果？ 满足上述标准同时是否引用了适当的参考文献？ 有无讨论研究局限性？ 结论 研究结论是否有适当证据支持，有无夸大？ 是否清楚讨论了结果的重要性/应用性/意义？ 文献引用 所引文献是否全面客观，有无遗漏重要研究，有无过分引用某些研究？ 期刊选择 目标期刊是否恰当？ 语言 稿件行文是否清楚、因此能被该领域以外的研究者理解？ 当你收到退修信和审稿意见时，应仔细研读其中所有评语(包括编辑评语和审稿人评语)，根据需要在稿件中作出相应调整，然后撰写一份详细的回复函。通常需要返回修改稿和回复函(回复函和再投稿信可分为两个文件)，并且需要在规定时间之前返回，否则修改稿将被作为新稿处理。编辑和/或审稿人的所有意见都必须回应，即使你不同意其意见。若你对某点持反对意见，应该礼貌并有理有据地反驳。在反驳时，可以引用某论文来支持你的说法(如该文不在参考文献中，可以考虑将其收入参考文献列表)，可以解释为何某个实验是以某种特定的方式开展的，也可以是解释为何你不按照审稿意见去做补充试验。但无论如何，不要不理睬或忽略审稿意见，因为这只会导致延迟。只有所有意见都妥当回应之后，你的论文才有可能发表。 回复函最好的格式是把编辑和审稿人的意见复制下来，然后在各条意见下面逐条回应。审稿意见和回应要用不同字体加以区分(如正体和斜体)。当提到文中的改动时，给出页码和行号以便迅速查找。把修改前后的文字都复制在回复函中，让人一目了然你如何修改回应审稿意见。通常要在文中标记出主要改动之处以便查找，比如用黄色高亮和/或使用下划线/删除线。最后，若编辑或审稿人要求补充分析或者实验，你应该照办并把数据加入稿件；这会让稿件更富有说服力并增加发表的机会。 实例 切记 1. 不要带着个人情绪去看待拒稿；拒稿的目的是使你的论文更有力和更可靠。 2. 修改稿件来回应编辑和/或审稿人提出的全部意见，并在回复函中说明这些修改。 3. 按要求补充实验或分析，除非你认为这样做意义不大(在这种情况下，需要给出反驳意见)。 4. 对于你不同意的审稿意见,礼貌而地提出有根据的反驳。 5. 用不同字体区分审稿意见和回应。 6. 为回应审稿人意见而在正文中所作的主要改动之处要予以标记，可以用黄色高亮、加下划线，或加删除线等方式。 7. 按期返回修改稿和回复函，以免被当作新投稿处理。 在这里还需提请各位注意，Dr. McGowan 的母语是英语，无法阅读中文，因此请大家尽量使用英文回帖，如有任何需要与他沟通的学术和语言问题也请使用英语，Dr. McGowan 会及时回复大家的。 Dr. Daniel McGowan 曾任 Nature Reviews Neuroscience 副编辑，负责约稿，管理和撰写期刊内容。于2006年加入理文编辑（Edanz Group） 并从2008年起担任学术总监。Dr. Daniel McGowan 有超过十年的博士后和研究生阶段实验室研究经验，主要致力于神经退化疾病、分子及细胞生物学、蛋白质生物化学、蛋白质组学和基因组学。
标签: 审稿意见
