如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见

如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）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:Dearreviewer:Iamverygratefultoyourcommentsforthemanuscript.Accordingwithyouradvice,weamendedtherelevantpartinmanuscript.Someofyourquestionswereansweredbelow.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：DearProfessorxx:Thankyouverymuchforyourletterdatedxxxxxxxxx,andthereferees’reports.Basedonyourcommentandrequest,wehavemadeextensivemodificationontheoriginalmanuscript.Here,weattachedrevisedmanuscriptintheformatsofbothPDFandMSword,foryourapproval.Adocumentansweringeveryquestionfromtherefereeswasalsosummarizedandenclosed.Arevisedmanuscriptwiththecorrectionsectionsredmarkedwasattachedasthesupplementalmaterialandforeasycheck/editingpurpose.Shouldyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactuswithouthesitate.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DearEditor:Thankyouforyourkindletterof“......”onNovember**,2005.Werevisedthemanuscriptinaccordancewiththereviewers’comments,andcarefullyproof-readthemanuscripttominimizetypographical,grammatical,andbibliographicalerrors.Herebelowisourdescriptiononrevisionaccordingtothereviewers’comments.PartA(Reviewer1)1.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:.....2.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:...........PartB(Reviewer2)1.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:.....2.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:...........Manygrammaticalortypographicalerrorshavebeenrevised.Allthelinesandpagesindicatedaboveareintherevisedmanuscript.Thankyouandallthereviewersforthekindadvice.Sincerelyyours,***一个回复的例子(已接收)Majorcomments:1.TheauthorsneedtostrengthentheirresultsbyincludingMMPsecretion,andtran-matrigelmigrationbyapositivecontrolprogenitorcellpopulationi.e.enrichedhumanCD34cellsobtainedfrommobilizedPBL,sincethisisamoreclinicallyrelevantsourceofCD34cellswhichhasalsobeenshowntosecretebothMMP-9andMMP-2(ref.11).CD34enrichedcellsfromsteadystateperipheralbloodwhichalsosecreteMMPsarealsoofinterest.2.Infig1CpleasespecifywhichcelllinerepresentsMMP-negativecells.Thisneedstobeclarified,aswellasabetterexplanationofthemethodoftheprotocol.3.TheELISAresultsarerepresentedasfoldincreasecomparedtocontrol.Instead,wesuggestthatstandardsshouldbeusedandresultsshouldbepresentedasabsoluteconcentrationsandonlythencantheseresultsbecomparedtothoseofthezymography.4.Whendiscussingtheresults,theauthorsshoulddistinguishclearlybetweenspontaneousmigrationvschemotacticmigration.Furthermore,thehighspontaneousmigrationobtainedwithcordbloodCD34cellsshouldbecomparedtomobilizedPBLCD34enrichedcellsanddiscussed.5.TheauthorsclaimthattheclonogenicassaywasperformedtodeterminetheoptimumconcentrationforinhibitionofMMPactivitybyphenanthrolineandantiMMP-9mAb,howevertheyshouldclarifythatthisassaycanonlydeterminethetoxicityoftheinhibitorsandnottheiroptimalinhibitoryconcentrations.Minorcomments:1.Therearemanyspellingandsyntaxerrors,especiallyintheresultsanddiscussion,whichneedcorrection.a.Ofspecialimportance,isthepercentinhibitionofmigration,whichisdescribedaspercentofmigration.i.e.pg7:MigrationofCBCD34wasreducedto73.3%?InsteadshouldreadMigrationofCBCD34wasreducedby73.3%?b.ThedegreesymbolneedstobeaddedtothenumbersinMaterialsandmethods.2.Itwouldbepreferabletocombinefigure1AandB,inordertoconfirmthereliabilityoffig.1Bbyapositivecontrol(HT1080).Answertoreferee1comment:1.MobilizedperipheralbloodisamoreclinicalsourceofCD34+cells,soitisnecessarytocomparetheMMP-9secretionandtrans-migrationabilityofCBCD34+cellswiththatofmobilizedPBCD34+cells.However,wecouldn'tobtainenoughmobilizedPBtoseparatePBCD34+cellsanddeterminetheMMP-9secretionandmigrationability,sowecouldn’tcomplementthestudyonPBCD34+cellsinthispaper.ResultsobtainedbyJanowska-WieczoreketalfoundthatmobilizedCD34+cellsinperipheralbloodexpressMMP-9.Furthermore,Domenech’sstudyshowedthatMMP-9secretionisinvolvedinG-CSFinducedHPCmobilization.Theirconclusionshavebeenaddedinthediscussion.Inourpresentstudy,ourcentralconclusionfromourdataisthatfreshlyisolatedCD34+stem/progenitorcellsobtainedfromCBproduceMMP-9.2.MMP-9negativecellusedinfig1CwasJurkatcell.Inzymographicanalysis,MMP-9wasnotdetectedinthemediumconditionedbyJurkatcell.ToexcludethatthecontaminatingcellsmayplayaroleintheobservedMMP-9production,wescr