以下是几个可以帮助你在回信时解说你如何修改论文的句型 开头 Thank you for providing these insights. Thank you for your suggestion. That is aninteresting query. This is an interesting perspective. We agree with you. We agree with your assessment. You have raised an important question. You have asked an interesting question. 同意审稿 或期刊编辑意见 We agree withyou and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper. We havereflected this comment by... (p. #, lines #-#). We haveincorporated your comments by... (p. #, lines #-#). We agree that... We have now (p. #, lines #-#) and (p. #, lines #-#). We think these changes nowbetter . We hope that you agree. 不同意评 审或期刊编辑意见 You have raised an important point; however, we believe that would be outside the scope of our paper because... This is a valid assessment of...; however, we believe that would be more appropriate because... We agree that...; however, due to , we believe that... In our revisions, we have attempted to (p. #, lines #-#); however, we have retained some of our arguments because... We acknowledge that has certain limitations; however,... 解释 澄清 We have clarified that... means... (p. #, lines #-#) throughout the paper. We have redrafted the section (p. #, lines #-#) to establish a clearer focus. We have revised the text (p. #, lines #-#) to reflect... We removed (from p. #, lines #-#) and hope that the deletion clarifies the points we attempted to make. We have replaced the term throughout the paper with to use more precise terms. We haverewritten (p. #, lines #-#) to be more in line with your comments. We hope that the edited section clarifies... We have elaborated on (p. #, lines #-#) and expanded our consideration of . We hope these revisions provide a more discussion. 额外的信息与解释 We have includeda new Figure # (p. #) to further illustrate... We have added anew Table # (p. #), which outlines... We have supplemented the section with explanations of (p. #, lines #-#). There aremultiple reasons/approaches to..., including . We have included an acknowledgment regarding this point in the section (p. #, lines #-#). We have not done... However, we believe that (p. #, lines #-#) would address this issue because... We have not done...; however, our sense is that... 回答多题 (当你的一个回覆能回答许多问题时) Please see point # above. TIP: It's customary to include any graduate degrees in the addressee’s name. e.g., JohnSmith, MD or Carolyn Daniels, MPH e.g., Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Co-Editors-in-Chief Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. : TIP: When the editor's name is not known, use the relevant title employed by the journal, such as Dear Managing Editor: or Dear Editor-in-Chief:.Using a person's name is best, however. Also, websites may be outdated, so call the journal to confirm to whom you should address your cover letter when in doubt. TIP: UseMs. and never Mrs. or Miss in formal business letters. TIP: Never useDear Sirs: or any similar expression. Many editors will find this insulting, especially given that many of them are female! Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled, to . We also appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We also hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted. To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated _____. Editor's Suggestions: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: Reviewer1 Comments: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: Reviewer2 Comments: RESPONSE: RESPONSE: CONCLUDING REMARKS : Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope thatthese revisions persuade you to accept our submission. Sincerely, Corresponding Author Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name AdditionalContact Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name 写作修改面向 Make a list of changes you mention in your letter and make sure you've made all the changes in your draft! Make sure you've thanked the editor and reviewers for their time. Make sure you are sending the right version of your manuscript Did you copy and paste ALL the original comments from the editor and reviewers? Did you answer or address ALL those comments? Did you include page and line references, where appropriate? Did you include all-new figures and other visual aids (and mention them in the rebuttal letter)? 写作规格 Set the font to Arial or Times New Roman, size 12 point. Single-space all text. Use one line space between body paragraphs. Do not indent paragraphs. Keep all text left-justified. Use spelling and grammar check software. If needed, use professional proofreading and editing services such as Wordvice to review your letter for clarity and concision. Double-check the spelling of the editor's and reviewers' names. 其他参考资源 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3242570/ How to handle rejection letters: https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2008/08/if-first-you-dont-succeed-cool-revise-and-submit-again Natureblog on writing a rebuttal letter: http://blogs.nature.com/methagora/2013/09/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-letter.html Natureblogon writingan appeal letter: http://blogs.nature.com/methagora/2013/09/how-to-write-an-appeal-letter.html Elsevier blog ontop three tipsfor responding to reviewer feedback: https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/3-top-tips-for-responding-to-reviewer-comments-on-your-manuscript Sample rebuttal letters https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/- rebuttal-letters https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMLE/Certo et al AMLE Responses to Reviewers.pdf
现在期刊作者常常被告知：你稿件的英文不过关，我们决定不送审。有的期刊更加过分，无理要求作者提供英语润色证明，否则不送审。（我没有编造，因为我见过。） 不过，今天遇到的情况有点 “ 特殊 ” 。 ［注解：以下的中文是 Google 翻译＋我的 “ 匆匆 ” 编译。］ Today, I was asked to comment on “how to write a peer review of a manuscript.” I thought Google must know the answer (which is faster than I can type up my own writing). Sure enough, I found the article below (quite a few lines below). 今天，有朋友问我 “ 如何撰写期刊稿件的同行评审。 ” 我认为谷歌一定知道（这比我自己写要快）。果然，我发现了下面的文章（好几行后面）。 My editor friend’s problem is unique in a way, but common for English journals “hosted” by Chinese, that is, some reviewers’ English and manners are not professional. To deal with this situation, each English journal could provide a short list as a guideline for reviewers (such a guideline for authors can been found at many websites). The guideline should state that the editorial office reserves the rights to do copy editing of a review to ensure effective communication between reviewers and editors/authors, and to remove any offensive languages in the writing to ensure fair treatment to the author(s). 这位编辑朋友的问题有点特殊，但这对中国人办的英文期刊来说，应该很常见，即一些审稿人的英语和口气不够好。面对这种情况下，英文期刊编辑部可以提供一个简短的审稿人指南（类似的作者指南可以在许多网站上找到）。在审稿人指南中，强调编辑部保留对审稿意见进行文字编辑的权利，以确保评审稿人和编辑 / 作者之间的有效沟通，并有权删除任何令人反感的语言，以确保对作者的公平对待。 Clearly, this is extra workload for the editorial office, but it may be necessary. (By the way, I often help my clients polish replies, but from time to time I am also asked to edit reviews. So, maybe more reviewers should consider using an editing service, not that I need more work/income.) 显然，这给编辑部增加了工作量，但可能必须这样做。 （顺便提一下，我经常帮助我的客户润色审稿意见回复，但我也曾经为审稿人润色过审稿意见。也许，一些审稿人应该考虑使用润色服务，这绝不是因为我需要更多的润色工作 / 收入。） 如何撰写期刊稿件的评审意见 How to write a peer review of a manuscript http://www.phd2published.com/2012/05/09/how-to-write-a-peer-review-for-an-academic-journal-six-steps-from-start-to-finish-by-tanya-golash-boza/ PhD2Published has several informative posts about writing journal articles, and more recently has featured a post outlining a potentially revolutionary collaborative peer review process for this kind of publishing. Today’s post offers an alternative perspective; that of the journal article peer reviewer. Doing peer reviews provides important experience for those writing their own papers and may help writers consider what they should include based on what peer reviewers are looking for. At some point in your scholarly career, you likely will get asked to review an article for a journal. In this post, I explain how I usually go about doing a peer review. I imagine that each scholar has their own way of doing this, but it might be helpful to talk openly about this task, which we generally complete in isolation. 在您的学术生涯中，您可能会被要审期刊的稿件。在这篇文章中，我解释了我通常如何进行同行评审。我想每位学者都有自己的方式来做这件事，但公开谈论这件事可能会对大家有所帮助，因为我们通常私下完成审稿。 第一步：接受同行评审邀请。 Step One: Accept the invitation to peer review . The first step in reviewing a journal article is to accept the invitation. When deciding whether or not to accept, take into consideration three things: 1) Do you have time to do the review by the deadline? 2) Is the article within your area of expertise? 3) Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline? Once you accept the invitation, set aside some time in your schedule to read the article and write the review. 第二步：阅读稿件。 Step Two: Read the article . I usually read the article with a pen in hand so that I can write my thoughts in the margins as I read. As I read, I underline parts of the article that seem important, write down any questions I have, and correct any mistakes I notice. 第三步：撰写一个关于此研究的简短评论，包括哪些是新的结果。 Step Three: Write a brief summary of the article and its contribution . When I am doing a peer review, I sometimes do it all in one sitting – which will take me about two hours – or I read it one day and write it the next. Often, I prefer to do the latter to give myself some time to think about the article and to process my thoughts. When writing a draft of the review, the first thing I do is summarize the article as best I can in three to four sentences. If I think favorably of the article and believe it should be published, I often will write a longer summary, and highlight the strengths of the article. Remember that even if you don’t have any (or very many) criticisms, you still need to write a review. Your critique and accolades may help convince the editor of the importance of the article. As you write up this summary, take into consideration the suitability of the article for the journal. If you are reviewing for the top journal in your field, for example, an article simply being factually correct and having a sound analysis is not enough for it to be published in that journal. Instead, it would need to change the way we think about some aspect of your field. 第四步：写下你对这篇稿件的主要批评。 Step Four: Write out your major criticisms of the article . When doing a peer review, I usually begin with the larger issues and end with minutiae. Here are some major areas of criticism to consider: –Is the article well-organized? –Does the article contain all of the components you would expect (Introduction, Methods, Theory, Analysis, etc)? –Are the sections well-developed? –Does the author do a good job of synthesizing the literature? –Does the author answer the questions he/she sets out to answer? –Is the methodology clearly explained? –Does the theory connect to the data? –Is the article well-written and easy to understand? –Are you convinced by the author’s results? Why or why not? 第五步：写下对稿件的任何（不太主要的）批评。 Step Five: Write out any minor criticisms of the article . Once you have laid out the pros and cons of the article, it is perfectly acceptable (and often welcome) for you to point out that the table on page 3 is mislabeled, that the author wrote “compliment” instead of “complement” on page 7, or other minutiae. Correcting those minor errors will make the author’s paper look more professional if it goes out for another peer review, and certainly will have to be corrected before being accepted for publication. 第六步：理顺你写的评审意见。 Step Six: Review . Go over your review and make sure that it makes sense and that you are communicating your critiques and suggestions in as helpful a way as possible. 仔细阅读您写的评审意见，并确保其逻辑性。尽可能以 “ 助人为乐 ” 的方式传达你的批评和建议。 Finally, I will say that, when writing a review, be mindful that you are critiquing the article in question – not the author. Thus, make sure your critiques are constructive. For example, it is not appropriate to write: “The author clearly has not read any Foucault.” Instead, say: “The analysis of Foucault is not as developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal article.” Also, be careful not to write: “The author is a poor writer.” Instead, you can say: “This article would benefit from a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the author’s argument due to the many stylistic and grammatical errors.” Although you are an anonymous reviewer, the Editor knows who you are, and it never looks good when you make personal attacks on others. So, in addition to being nice, it is in your best interest. 最后，我要说的是，在撰写评审意见时，请注意你是批评文章的问题，而不是作者本人。因此，请确保你的批评是建设性的。例如，这种评论是不恰当的： “ 作者显然没有读过任何关于 xxx 的文章。 ” 你应该说： “ 对 xxx 的分析并不像我期望的那样。 ” 此外，不要写这种评论： “ 作者英语太烂。 ” 你可以说： “ 这篇文章将受益于英文润色。由于许多写作风格和语法上的错误，我发现很难理解你的论点。 ” 虽然你是一位匿名审稿人，但编辑知道你是谁。当你对作者进行人身攻击时，别人不会喜欢。所以，应该尊重作者，这对你的事业也有益。（谁知道以后你的儿媳妇会不会是作者的女儿呢！） Tanya Golash-Boza is Associate Professor of Sociology and American Studies at the University of Kansas. She Tweets as@tanyagolashboza and has her own website .
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； ... 本帖内容来自 www.chemj.cn ,欢迎访问原帖！本贴地址： http://www.chemj.cn/viewthread.php?tid=9113 Major comments: 1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMPsecretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitorcell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilizedPBL, since this is a more clinically relevant source of CD34 cellswhich has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11).CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which alsosecrete MMPs are also of interest. 2. In fig 1C please specifywhich cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to beclarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of theprotocol. 3. The ELISA results are represented as foldincrease compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standardsshould be used and results should be presented as absoluteconcentrations and only then can these results be compared to those ofthe zymography. 4. When discussing the results, the authorsshould distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotacticmigration. Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained withcord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enrichedcells and discussed. 5. The authors claim that the clonogenicassay was performed to determine the optimum concentration forinhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb,however they should clarify that this assay can only determine thetoxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitoryconcentrations. 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, whichis described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:Migration of CB CD34was reduced to 73.3%? Instead should read Migration of CB CD34 wasreduced 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 toconfirm 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-migrationability 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 wecouldnt complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Resultsobtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cellsin peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenechs study showedthat MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization.Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our presentstudy, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolatedCD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9. 2.MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographicanalysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkatcell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in theobserved MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned bydifferent proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cellsby zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only bydetecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml(since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could excludethe MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CBmononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected inthe medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibilitythat the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due tothe contamination by MNC. 3.In this revised paper, we havedetected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISAkits (RD System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 fromRD System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in theabsolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has beenadded in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable inboth CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditionedmedium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cellconditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium(0.4060.133ng/ml versus 0.1950.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolyticactivity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM,sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BMCD34+. 4. In our study, to establish the direct link betweenMMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role ofMMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not inchemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cellmigration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bonemarrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules,chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by thegroups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration butalso the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increasedin comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood. 5.CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. Itis not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select theoptimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, basedon the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer'srecommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations byexcluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, whichwas determined by clonogenic assay. Minor comments: 1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected. 2.Sincethe results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated andparallel 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 themanuscript. 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: Thesample 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 dadahave been added into the revised manuscript. Comment (continued): Figure7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure toconvince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot bemade without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no otherconclusion 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): Table3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for aselect few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just referencemethod used. Reply: Done accordingly. Comment (continued): Page11: faster weight loss What was the sample size? Where is thestatistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see asignificant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight losswould be considered equivalent. Reply: Although not too muchdifference was seen, the conclusion that the GS/PCL membrane exhibiteda relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane wasindeed applicable through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)analysis. Following the reviewers comment, a new sub-section hasbeen added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis forthe data. Comment (continued): Page 12: What is the sample sizefor release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one?Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn'trelease performed and compared for all electrospun conditionsinvestigated otherwise? Reply: Three repeated tests wereperformed for each set of measurements and the resulting data wereaveraged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a squarearea of 3?3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11. Thepresent manuscript aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulatedin ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. Thedrug release data intended to show that the encapsulation wassuccessful. We did not consider any specific application in thispreliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as modelillustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform releaseexperiments for all of the membranes electrospun with differentconditions (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): Figure11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this smallsample of release data? Where is the release data for the otherconditions? Reply: Unfortunately, we did not measure the amountof the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely,the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was notaccurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release wasnot applicable. Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments. Weacknowledge the reviewers comments and suggestions very much, whichare valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript. 本帖内容来自 www.chemj.cn ,欢迎访问原帖！本贴地址： http://www.chemj.cn/viewthread.php?tid=9113
标签: 审稿人意见
