如何回复审稿人意见.docx

如何回复审稿人意见：
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。
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，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 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 reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s 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 3.0×3.0 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 reviewer’s 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 3cm2 with a slightly different thickness.´3
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 reviewer’s comments and suggestions 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 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 couldn’t 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, Domenech’s 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 (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, 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 (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/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.

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。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，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？
第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。
第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。
上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。
写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，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 of Actions
LOA1: 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 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 Reviewers
To 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 B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s 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，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 Figure 2, see LOA 4.
意见2：第3页有个错别字。
We have removed all typos, see LOA5.