How-to-reply-to-referees--SCI写作如何回复审稿人

SPECIALARTICLEHowtoreplytoreferees’commentswhensubmittingmanuscriptsforpublicationHywelC.Williams,PhDNottingham,UnitedKingdomBackground:Thepublicationofarticlesinpeer-reviewedscientificjournalsisafairlycomplexandstep-wiseprocessthatinvolvesrespondingtoreferees’comments.Littleguidanceisavailableinthebiomedicalliteratureonhowtodealwithsuchcomments.Objective:Theobjectiveofthisarticleistoprovideguidancetonovicewritersondealingwithpeerreviewcommentsinawaythatmaximizesthechanceofsubsequentacceptance.Methods:Thiswillbealiteraturereviewandreviewoftheauthor’sexperienceasawriterandreferee.Results:Wherepossible,theauthorshouldconsiderrevisingandresubmittingratherthansendinganarticleelsewhere.Astructuredlayoutforrespondingtoreferees’commentsissuggestedthatincludesthe3goldenrules:(1)respondcompletely;(2)respondpolitely;and(3)respondwithevidence.Conclusion:Respondingtoreferees’commentsrequiresthewritertoovercomeanyfeelingsofpersonalattack,andtoinsteadconcentrateonaddressingreferees’concernsinacourteous,objective,andevidence-basedway.(JAmAcadDermatol2004;51:79-83.)Plentyofguidanceisavailableonconductinggoodresearch,1,2andWebsitesofmostscien-tificjournalsgiveclearandhelpfulinstructionsonwhatissuitableforsubmissionandhowtosubmit.Yetwheredoesoneobtainguidanceonreplyingtoreferees’(peerreviewer)commentsoncethemanuscriptisreturned?Icouldfindlittleintheliteraturedealingwiththisimportanttopic.3-7Thisarticleattemptstoaddressthisgapbypro-vidingsomehelpfultipsonhowtoreplytoreferees’comments.Intheabsenceofanysystematicresearchtodeterminewhichstrategiesarebestintermsofacceptancerates,thetipssuggestedbelowarebasedsimplyonmypersonalexperienceofpublishingapproximately200articles,refereeingmorethan500manuscripts,andworkingasaneditorfor3derma-tologyjournals.IhavepresentedsomeaspectsoftheworkpreviouslyintwoworkshopswithgroupsofBritishSpecialistRegistrarsindermatology,andIamgratefultothemforhelpingmetodevelopthelearningthemes.Ihavedeliberatelynotenteredintoanydis-cussionsonthequalityofpeerreview8orthevalueofpeerreviewinpublicationbecauseitisstillhotlydebatedifpeerreviewreallyhelpstodiscriminatebetweengoodandbadresearchorwhetheritsimplyimprovesthereadabilityandqualityofacceptedarticles.9Instead,IhavedecidedtosticktoprovidingwhatIhopeishelpfulandpracticalguidancewithinthesystemthatalreadyexists.THATLETTERARRIVESFROMTHEJOURNALAfterlaboringformanymonthsoryearsonyourresearchprojectandhavingwrittenmanymanu-scriptdraftstosendoffyourfinaljournalsubmission,aletterorelectronic-mailmessagefromthejournalarrivesseveralweekslaterindicatingwhetherthejournaleditorisinterestedinyourmanuscript.Atthisstage,itiseveryauthor’shopethatthemanuscriptisacceptedwithnochanges,yetsuchanexperienceisincrediblyrareeithashappenedtomeonlytwice,andthesewerebothcommissionedreviews.Morecommonly,oneofthefollowingscenariosensues.FromtheCentreofEvidenceBasedDermatology,Queen’sMedicalCentre.Fundingsources:None.Conflictsofinterest:Noneidentified.Reprintrequests:HywelC.Williams,PhD,CentreofEvidenceBasedDermatology,Queen’sMedicalCentre,NottinghamNG72UH,UnitedKingdom.E-mail:[e-mail].0190-9622/$30.00ª2004bytheAmericanAcademyofDermatology,Inc.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.04979YMJD1792_proof
9June2004
3:19pmAcceptwithminorrevisionIfyouarelucky,theletterwillaskforonlyminorrevisions.Insuchcircumstances,itisprobablybesttosimplygetonwiththesechangeswithoutinvokingtoomuchargument.Ifyousendtherevisedmanu-scriptbacktotheeditorquickly,itisstilllikelytobefreshinhisorhermind,andyouwillprobablygetaspeedyacceptance.MajorrevisionsneededThemostcommonformofletterisonethatlists2or3setsofreferees’comments,someofwhicharequitemajor.Insuchcircumstances,youwillneedtoworkhardatreadingandreplyingtoeachrefereeinturn,followingthelayoutand3goldenrules(Table1)thatIwilldeveloplaterinthisarticle.Suchaprocesscantakedaystocomplete,sodonotunderestimatethetask.Onlyyoucandecidewhethersuchaninvestmentoftimeisworthwhile.Myadviceisalwaystoreviseandresubmittothesamejournalifthecommentsarefair,evenifrespondingtothemtakesalotoftime.Someauthorsgoweakatthekneeswhenrequestedtodoamajorrevision,andinsteadsimplysendthemanuscriptelsewhere.Thisisunderstandable,buttheauthorsshouldstilltryandmakeimprovementstothemanuscriptinlightofthereferees’comments.Authorsshouldalsobeawarethatincertainfieldsofresearch,theirworkislikelytoendupwiththesamerefereewhentheysendtheirmanuscripttoanothermajorspecialtyjournal.Itwillnotgodownwellwiththatrefereeiftheyseethattheauthorshavecompletelyignoredthereferees’pre-viouscomments.So,generallyspeaking,myadviceistoputinthetimeneededtomakeabettermanuscriptbasedonthereferees’comments,andresubmitalongthelinessuggested.Ifyoudosubmittoanotherjournal,youshouldconsidershowingthelatestjournalthepreviousreferees’commentsandhowyouhaveimprovedthearticleinresponsetosuchcommentsesomejournaleditorsfeelpositivelyaboutsuchhonesty(J.D.Bernhard,MD,writtencommunication,November2003).JournalrequestsacompleterewriteOnlyyoucandecideiftheeffortofacompleterewriteisworthit.Ifitisclearthattherefereesandeditorareintere