如何避免审稿人的大斧

合集下载

从实例出发，教你如何与审稿人“斗智斗勇”

从实例出发，教你如何与审稿人“斗智斗勇”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。

期刊拒稿的原因期刊拒稿有各种原因。

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。

同理，拙劣的投稿信也可能造成不经审稿便直接拒稿。

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。

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。

今天我们来谈谈回复审稿人意见的几个要点。

收到的审稿意见，少则几条，多则几十条，面对这张战书，需要淡定，淡定，再淡定。

首先分一分类，哪些需要细节修改，哪些需要补充实验，哪些需要好好查查文献战胜审稿人的刁难。

想好了，再开始一场不见血光的战斗！下面小编就给大家传授几招，回复审稿人的正确姿势！回合1：先礼后兵，礼貌开头Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “文章题目”. These comments are all valuable andvery helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. （你的提议太有用了，我论文的质量蹭蹭蹭就上去了！我们相当仔细研究了你的建议之类的话）The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows: .......回合2：细节修改，不容小觑，一一作答，有礼有节比如审稿人提出：图中需要补充比例尺回复：As for the referee’s concern, we have added scale bars to the Figures.比如审稿人提出：部分图片没有显著性差异回复：As for the referee’s concern, we have indicated a significant difference with asterisk in figures.比如审稿人提出：通篇语言问题不过关回复：We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and edited by a native speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’s standard. Thanks so much for your useful comments.比如审稿人提出：补充缩写词的全称回复：As fo r the referee’s concern, the full descriptions of the abbreviations like IHC, MTT etc have been supplemented in the revised manuscript.比如审稿人提出：裂解液成分有问题回复：We are very sorry for the mistake. Lentivirus-transduced cells were washed twice with PBS, and suspended in a lysis buffer (2% mercaptoethanol, 20% glycerol, and 4% SDS, in 100 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 6.8). The information for the lysis buffer has been corrected in the materials and methods.回合3：补充实验，耗时耗力，如果不补，只能argue比如审稿人提出：补充正常皮肤细胞作对照Tips：如果你真的不想补，或者正常细胞株，你也买不到，还是查一查正常细胞株的名字，告诉审稿人你确实是去努力过，只是事与愿违啊！回复：Indeed, it will be more convincing if we get acomparative assessment on normal keratinocytes. However, the normal skin cell line TE 353.SK that we recently obtained could not be cultured stably under the condition of our lab at this time. We are also collecting human tissue samples from patients with primary melanoma and benign nevi. Based on our data, XXX expression will be analyzed in clinical samples by immunohistochemistry, and the correlation between XXX expression and the prognosis of melanoma will be determined in our subsequent investigations. Therefore, the referee’s concern is of importance for our further study, and we will show the results in our next paper for XXX.比如审稿人提出：补充体内实验Tips：补充动物实验，是审稿人最爱发的一招，其实一点不令人意外。

如何避开审稿人的斧头How to avoid the reviewer's axe

ieee transactions on ultrasonics,ferroelectrics,and frequency control,vol.51,no.1,january2004127 Guest EditorialHow to Avoid the Reviewer’s Axe:One Editor’s ViewStephen D.SenturiaEditor’s Note:Stephen D.Senturia has been a member of the Board of Editors for IEEE/ASME JMEMS since the journal’sﬁrst issue in1992and was named a Senior Edi-tor in1998.This experience,coupled with his service from 1985–1995as the Solid-State Sensors Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices,adds up to17years in an editor’s chair.Over the years,Steve has kept mental notes on the myriad of problems that authors have with reviewers and has been inspired to compile the following “advice to the author”about ways to keep reviewers sat-isﬁed;hence,to keep them“at bay.”Abstract—Based on his many years of experience,a JMEMS editor provides guidelines for authors that will,if followed,greatly reduce the risk of a devastatingly negative result from the review process.The premise is that there are certain things that rightfully anger reviewers,and,once angered,the reviewers become both negative and aggressive in their judgments—hence,the imagery of“the reviewer’s axe”and how to avoid it.I.IntroductionS ince this is a personal commentary,I will use theﬁrst person,something that no proper writer of scientiﬁc discourse would ever do.As an author of many technical papers over my35-year academic career,I have too often felt the anxiety of opening that envelope from the journal editor,which,from its bulk,obviously contains my pre-cious manuscript,returned to me for either minor revision, massive rework,or—the ultimate wound—assignment to the manuscriptal trashbin.Now,having spent some17years on the oppo-site side of the table,my cumulative experience with many manuscripts and almost equally many unhappy au-thors is that the primary reason reviewers attack cer-tain manuscripts is that those manuscripts are genuinely ﬂawed.Many,if not most authors won’t agree,at least not atﬁrst.So I thought it would be helpful to authors if I were to set down some practical suggestions for preventing the reviewer’s axe from giving the authors a whack.A scientiﬁc manuscript is intended to communicate new information and to teach new material to a willing audi-ence.Many authors forget this simple fact;rather,they This article originally appeared in the IEEE Journal of Microelec-tromechanical Systems,vol.12,no.3,June2003,pp.229–232.It is reprinted here with the permission of the author and IEEE.view the writing process as an opportunity to bolster their own egos and impress the reader,even discomﬁt the reader somewhat,either with too much material or too little. Since there are many diﬀerent styles of paper,I will se-lect a hypothetical example of an experimental paper in which the authors make a minor advance in an established experimental method,and they then use this method to obtain some new results that are to be compared with a model that is also a minor modiﬁcation of already pub-lished work.Along the way,some unusual behavior is ob-served that the modiﬁed model cannot explain.The au-thors believe that they understand why this behavior is ob-served,and wish to propose their explanation,even though they have not yet done the deﬁnitive experiments to prove their hypothesis.II.Senturia’s GuidelinesHow should the authors think about organizing and writing this paper?I propose a set of simple guidelines. The names are listed below,followed by some discussion in which each guideline is explored in depth:•(Almost)Nothing is New.•Rely on the Believability Index.•Watch for Gambling Words.•Don’t Be a Longfellow.•Don’t Pull Rabbits Out of Hats.•Mine All the Gold.•Remember:Reviewers are Inarticulate and Authors are(somewhat)Paranoid.Violation of one or more of the principles explained un-der each guideline risks getting the reviewer angry(with cause),and once that happens,the axe comes out and swings with purpose.I don’t believe that a manuscript has ever been written that cannot be improved,but an angry reviewerﬁnds many more faults than a reviewer who believes that the author has basically done a highly professional job,both of research and of writing.It’s just plain dumb to aggravate a reviewer.Every author’s goal should be to keep the reviewer’s axe in its sheath.III.(Almost)Nothing Is New Everyone knows that there is nothing new under the sun.Everyone,that is,except an ambitious author who believes that his or her work is unique.While there are a0885–3010/$20.00c 2004IEEE128ieee transactions on ultrasonics,ferroelectrics,and frequency control,vol.51,no.1,january2004few truly unique and amazing results published once in a while,most of our work is built on the work of others.It is every author’s obligation to establish clearly the context in which the new work belongs,both by a brief introduction and by the citation of appropriate references (which the author should have read,not simply copied from someone else’s reference list).If an author doesn’t know any relevant references,then he or she should get on-line andﬁnd them—they are there!I used to tell my graduate students:“First,ﬁgure out what you have done. Then,go to the library andﬁnd it!”They might notﬁnd exactly what they themselves had done,but they would ﬁnd all kinds of relevant material that needed to be sifted toﬁnd the critical subset that was so relevant,it demanded citation.Along the way,there are some additional principles to follow.>If you have a manuscript on a closely related topic that is either buried in some conference digest,is still in review,or has already been accepted by a journal but is not yet in print,it is your obligation both to notify the editor and reviewers of the existence of this paper and pro-vide prepublication copies to aid the review process.This is perhaps the single most signiﬁcant source of reviewer venom—the discovery of a related paper that the authors have kept hidden from the reviewers.And the venom is real—the reviewer feels that the author is trying to trick the review process,so out comes the axe.>If a reference is relevant enough to your work to cite it,then it is also relevant to your results.Many authors provide a cosmetic list of references at the beginning of a paper,but never return to compare their allegedly new results with the contents of the cited papers.This infuri-ates reviewers,and rightly so.Scientiﬁc advances are the result of conﬁrmation and comparison among many inde-pendent investigators.When results are presented without any comparisons to prior work,reviewers get angry,and they get out the axe.IV.Rely on the Believability Index The essence of scientiﬁc advance is that results are be-lievable because they have been repeated and checked by independent investigators.By deﬁnition then,a truly new result is not scientiﬁcally conﬁrmed until it has been re-peated by others.This leads me to the concept of a Be-lievability Index.In creating an outline for this hypothetical experimental paper with modest advances both in experimental method and in the model and with some surprising results that come out,the author should think about the believabil-ity of the various constituents of the outline.Clearly,the existence of a cited public record of previously published work(regardless of whether that work is or is not cor-rect)is highly believable.So are the basic laws of physics, well-established theories and models,and widely practiced experimental procedures.All of these have a high believ-ability.In contrast,any new result has a lower believability.If a result hasn’t been conﬁrmed by others,it is not“estab-lished”and therefore is intrinsically less believable than a peer-conﬁrmed result.At the lowest level of believability is an author’s speculation as to the reason for any new result. (Said another way,“Talk is cheap.”)But if a new experi-mental result is suﬃciently documented in a manuscript, reviewers may accept it,even if they don’t agree with the speculative explanation for the new behavior.All of this leads to the principle of the Believability In-dex,which automatically assigns an order to the contents of the paper:>Write the paper in order of decreasing believability.The beauty of this approach should be self-evident.If a paper is written in order of decreasing believability,each reader will be led to agree with what is stated at the begin-ning,because it has high believability,but later might balk at accepting either a new experimental result(if improp-erly explained)or a speculative explanation.A properly ordered paper will have NO critical high-believability con-tent after the introduction of theﬁrst moderate-or low-believability material.And the reader who,at some point along the way,fails to agree with the author,has the ben-eﬁt of knowing all of the high-believability material at the point of disagreement and thus can focus the disagreement on the right issues.Sample-preparation methods,which are assumed to be completely factual reports of what an author did,should have a high believability and thus belong early in a paper.A common mistake of authors is to surprise readers rela-tively late in a paper,well beyond theﬁrst low-believability point,with a report of some new sample preparations and the like.That kind of writing makes for choppy papers that are hard to read,and hard-to-read papers irritate re-viewers.If you are reporting a new experimental procedure,in order to keep its believability high,you should trace by example how you go from raw data to reduced data to ex-tracted measured result,and mention such things as cali-bration(if not based on a commercial instrument speciﬁ-cation),the number of samples,and the relation between the error bars on the graph and your data(is it full range? probable error of the mean?what?).Conﬁrmation that the new method gives an expected answer in a well-known case is an obvious believability-builder.This helps to improve the believability of your new experimental results,which was presumably the whole point of writing the paper in theﬁrst place.If you are reporting a new model,you need to anchor the model in high-believability starting points,then make clear when you are jumping oﬀthe believability cliﬀby making an assumption that is not provably correct.As to whether models or experimental methods goﬁrst is largely a matter of taste.If there are new components to both,then be careful of going too far down one road or the other in terms of believability before introducing the other.guest editorial:how to avoid the reviewer’s axe:one editor’s view129The loveliest outcome of this approach is that you,as author,are led to place all speculation after the point at which all more moderate-believability things such as new experimental results are already in hand.This sometimes poses diﬃculties for authors.The tendency is to dribble out results,then comment(see Section VI,“Longfellow”), then dribble out some more results,and so on.Get the higher believability material on record before speculating. Your reviewer will love you.V.Watch for Gambling Words You are probably wondering why I would be interested in gambling words in this context.For this insight,I am indebted to Prof.Arthur C.Smith of MIT who,when coau-thoring a paper with me back in the early1970s,cautioned me against using what he called“gambling words”like “obviously,”“probably,”“certainly,”and“undoubtedly.”Art’s comment was that if you have to persuade using probabilistic words,it means you can’t prove your point and you are speculating.Hence:>If youﬁnd yourself inclined to use gambling words, it means you don’t know what you are talking about,and, therefore,such material has,intrinsically,low believabil-ity.Replace the gambling words with words that make it clear that you are speculating,and place such comments in the appropriate place in the paper,along with other low-believability speculations.VI.Don’t be a LongfellowIn Tales of a Wayside Inn,the poet Longfellow presents a set of stories told by various guests at the inn,sitting around theﬁre.While Longfellow was a wonderful story-teller,he should NOT be adopted as the role model for scientiﬁc writing.It is an alluring temptation to state a fact and then tell a story explaining this fact,then give another fact and tell another story,on and on until one runs out of new facts.(For some reason,chemists,in par-ticular,seem to love this model.)What’s wrong with it is that it violates the rule of decreasing believability.Stories are nice,but might,like Longfellow’s,beﬁction.Scientiﬁc writing,one hopes,is nonﬁction.Resist the temptation to be a modern-day Longfellow until ALL of the high-believability material has been presented and one is ready to telegraph the fact that one is speculating by using head-ings such as“Discussion”or“Interpretation.”VII.Don’t Pull Rabbits Out of Hats We all recall the thrill when,as children,seated on the ﬂoor of a crowded school auditorium,we would see the visiting magician pull a rabbit out of his hat.Some of that thrill seems to stick,because many scientiﬁc writers seem to want to imitate the magician.They store up a con-ﬁrming experiment until after they have led their readers down a particular garden path,and then,and only then,do they reveal that they did this extra experiment that (the authors hope)proves their point.There are two prob-lems with this:ﬁrst,it clearly violates the Believability-Index rule by placing(presumably)high-believability ma-terial after some lower-believability explanations of ear-lier results and second,it opens the possibility that there is really aﬂaw in the reasoning.Reviewers get tenacious searching for theﬂaws when confronted with rabbits out of hats.The rule is simple:Don’t do it.VIII.Mine All the GoldImagine that you have hiked up a desolate canyon in mountainous country,took a few shovelfuls of promising-looking dirt,dumped them in the gold pan and,in the nearby stream,washed it down until you found a few nuggets of gold.You are elated,and decide to rush to the nearest mining oﬃce and stake a claim.Then,inexplicably, you announce your claim to the world,but never return to mine the gold.Everyone would think you a fool if you were to do this,but in reality,many scientiﬁc writers,in eﬀect,fail to“mine the gold.”It costs real time and eﬀort(and often signiﬁcant sums of hard-to-get money)to get good data. The data represent the shovelfuls of earth that yield a few nuggets.The analog of“staking the claim”is writing a paper—it is through this process that you announce to the world that“there is gold around.”Given the cost of those data,however,it would be foolish not to try to get every single nugget out of the dirt,or,at a minimum,ev-ery nugget out of the shovelfuls of dirt you have already collected.Many authors,regrettably,in my opinion,are too quick to give up on what they can learn from data.(This is the opposite of overspeculation on what poorly supported re-sults mean.That is a diﬀerent sin which was covered under the general“Believability”heading.)While it may not be essential to the publication of the nuggets you didﬁnd, your chances of success with reviewers goes way up when you are able to demonstrate a DEEP understanding of what your data do and do not show.For example,many authors look at the signal they are able to measure and fail to note that the noise spectrum may provide informa-tion on fundamental processes that might limit detectabil-ity.Other authors fail to search for correlations buried in their results that give hints of things that may be new or important.In short,be tenacious.Try to mine all of the information from data,even if it pushes you in the direc-tion of speculation and other low-believability comments. As long as such comments are clearly labeled as specula-tive and are potentially interesting,reviewers will applaud both the diligence and the forthrightness.IX.Remember:Reviewers Are Inarticulate and Authors Are(Somewhat)ParanoidI close this article with guidelines on how to deal with the reviewers’comments,once they have been received.130ieee transactions on ultrasonics,ferroelectrics,and frequency control,vol.51,no.1,january2004When a reviewer complains about something in a paper, the chances are very good that there is a problem with the paper.Not every comment by every reviewer is a correct or proper criticism,but I would say that more than90%of the criticisms that I have seen have some degree of merit.But,reviewers are inarticulate.Reviewers often state their objections badly,and that makes their reviews look arbitrary,even whimsical.The authors’anger and para-noia are then provoked.Now what?As an author,it is your obligation to respond to each and every reviewer criticism.The manner with which you do this has a great eﬀect on the smoothness of the road to publication.If you try,as some have,to bully the reviewer (or the editor)into submission without making a construc-tive response,both the reviewer(and probably the editor) will do the equivalent of tossing you out on the street.I have seen cases in which brilliantly written polemics from angry authors that eﬀectively rebut a reviewers’point failed in their goal because the authors wouldn’t incor-porate the essence of their rebuttal into suitable modiﬁ-cations of their precious manuscript.Ego interferes with constructive action,and paranoia cripples it.Asserting scientiﬁc correctness of your own work is a task to be undertaken with some humility and with respect for the established knowledge that has preceded your work. Diﬃcult as it may be,hold your temper and your polemics when you get a review,and try instead to think“why is the reviewer really bothered at this point?”If you,as author, canﬁgure out why the reviewer was led to a particular comment,you willﬁnd a pathway to improving the paper and satisfying the reviewer at the same time.Often,the failing of the paper is not at the precise point raised by the reviewer but rather arises somewhere else,such as through a non-optimal order of topics or comments,or an omitted few words of explanation elsewhere else in the paper.A remarkably open mind is required to read reviewers’crit-icisms in this vein,but it is vastly productive and greatly shortens the time to publication.Of course,some reviewers’comments are simply wrong. If you handle the proper comments with courtesy and professionalism,the editor is much more likely to agree with you about the comments that you reject.So,my ad-vice is to submit a complete restatement of the reviewer comments with your own comments added on how you have responded to each and every criticism.If you do a good enough job on this,the editor mayﬁnd that he or she can make a publication decision without going back through the review process,saving many weeks in pub-lication time.And the reputation you develop by being mindful of the realities of referee inarticulateness will serve you well throughout your career.And,next time,you will write a better paper.Stephen D.Senturia,Senior EditorMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyProfessor of Electrical EngineeringCambridge,MA02139USAFebruary22,2003。

如何处理审稿人的意见和建议

如何处理审稿人的意见和建议在学术研究和论文写作过程中，审稿人的意见和建议对于提高文章质量和学术价值起着至关重要的作用。

然而，很多时候我们会面临审稿人提出的一些挑战和困惑，如何妥善处理这些意见和建议成为了我们需要思考和解决的问题。

本文将探讨如何处理审稿人的意见和建议。

首先，我们需要保持开放的心态。

审稿人的意见和建议往往是基于其丰富的学术经验和专业知识，因此我们应该以积极的态度对待。

不要将审稿人的批评视为攻击，而是将其视为提高文章质量的机会。

我们应该接受审稿人的意见，并尽可能地将其融入到我们的论文中。

这不仅有助于提高文章的学术水平，也能够加深我们对研究主题的理解。

其次，我们需要仔细阅读审稿人的意见和建议。

在处理审稿人的意见时，我们不能草率地回复或忽视。

相反，应该认真阅读每一条意见，并仔细思考其背后的原因和意义。

有时，审稿人的建议可能会涉及到我们研究方法的不足或数据的不完备，这时我们需要重新审视自己的研究设计和数据收集过程，以确保文章的科学性和可靠性。

第三，我们需要与审稿人进行积极的沟通。

有时，我们可能会对审稿人的意见产生疑惑或不解，这时我们可以通过邮件或电话与审稿人进行沟通。

在与审稿人交流时，我们应该保持礼貌和谦虚的态度，不要过分争论或抗拒。

相反，我们应该尊重审稿人的意见，并尽可能地解释我们的研究方法和结果。

通过积极的沟通，我们可以更好地理解审稿人的意见，并找到解决问题的方法。

此外，我们还可以寻求其他专家的意见和建议。

审稿人的意见虽然重要，但并不是唯一的参考依据。

我们可以向其他专家或同行请教，听取他们的意见和建议。

这样可以帮助我们更全面地审视自己的研究，发现潜在的问题和改进的空间。

同时，与其他专家的交流也有助于扩大我们的学术网络和提高学术影响力。

最后，我们需要坚持不懈地修改和改进。

审稿人的意见和建议往往需要我们进行大量的修改和改进。

在修改过程中，我们应该保持耐心和毅力，不要轻易放弃。

我们可以根据审稿人的意见逐一修改论文，并重新提交给审稿人。

如何应对学术论文的审稿意见合理回应与修改建议

如何应对学术论文的审稿意见合理回应与修改建议学术论文的审稿环节是科研工作中十分重要的一环。

审稿意见旨在评估论文的学术质量、提出改进方向和建议，对于学者来说，合理回应和修改审稿意见至关重要。

本文将介绍如何应对学术论文的审稿意见，提供一些建议和技巧来进行合理的回应和修改。

一、审慎阅读审稿意见审稿人的审稿意见通常会包含对论文的批评、建议和修改意见。

在应对审稿意见之前，首先应该仔细阅读和理解每条意见。

对于提出的批评要保持冷静和客观，不应过度执着于自己的观点而忽视审稿人的建议。

二、合理回应审稿意见1.虚心接受意见在回复过程中，要保持虚心并表达感谢之意。

明确表示对审稿人意见的接受，并表示愿意对论文进行必要的修改。

2.回应中指明修改措施对于审稿人提出的具体修改建议，回应中应清楚地说明自己将如何按照这些建议进行修改。

可以采用条理清晰的方式，逐条回应审稿人的建议，并给出具体的修改方案。

3.解释自己的修改在回应中，可以适当解释自己对修改的理解和考虑。

如果在某些地方没有按照审稿人建议进行修改，可以说明原因，并提出自己的理由。

但要注意不要过于辩解，避免过度争论。

4.尊重审稿人意见尽量避免批评和质疑审稿人意见的偏见或错误，而是应该以尊重的态度对待审稿人的意见。

虽然有时审稿人的意见可能有限或存在不一致，但作为学者，应该坚持以开放的心态来对待他们的意见。

三、合理修改论文1.针对审稿意见进行修改根据审稿人的具体意见，结合自己的研究经验和观点，对论文进行合理的修改。

在修改过程中，要严格遵循学术规范和论文写作要求。

2.修改思路和结构如果审稿人对论文的整体结构和思路提出了质疑或建议，应该认真考虑并做出相应的修改。

有时候需要对原来的论据和结论进行重新梳理和调整。

3.修正语言和文笔问题审稿人可能会对论文的语言和文笔提出意见。

在修改过程中，要注意论文的语言表达是否准确、简明扼要。

消除语法错误、调整句子结构和词汇使用，以提高论文的可读性和可理解性。

如何避免审稿人的大斧

如何避免审稿人的大斧如何避免审稿人的大斧(译者序：本文是发表在最近一期 IEEE/ASME J MEMS的一篇关于如何撰写科技论文的文章。

作者Stephen D. Senturia(MIT电子系教授)从自己作为论文作者和审稿人双重角色的经验出发，对如何撰写科技论文发表了一些非常中肯也非常重要的建议。

大家知道，尽管IEEE系列杂志在SCI中的影响因子相对基础研究的杂志还很低，甚至有的杂志还不是SCI收录期刊，但是IEEE系列杂志在电子工程的众多领域中几乎都是名列前茅的，其审稿非常严格。

作者作为IEEE系列杂志中几个杂志的审稿人、编辑，对这些杂志有透彻的了解，因此，相信这些建议会对大家有些帮助;同时，作者的建议是通用的，对其它领域的作者也会有所帮助。

原文并不长，但是考虑到其中作者使用了一些非科技词汇，查找这些词汇会用去不少时间，因此译者试图根据自己的理解翻译此文，希望能为大家节约一点时间。

错误之处难免，请谅解。

编辑注：Stephen D. Senturia从1992年IEEE/ASME J MEMS(2002年影响因子2.8，译者注)创刊以来就一直是该杂志的编委会成员，并在1998年被提名为高级编辑。

这些连同他1985年-1995年作为IEEE T Electron Dev(2002年影响因子1.9，译者注)Solid-StateSensors的编辑的经验，作者已经累计具有17年作为IEEE杂志编辑的经验。

这些年里，Steve(作者名字的简称，译者注)总结了论文作者们给审稿人带来的大量的问题，因此我们邀请他撰写了下面的这篇给作者的建议，告诉大家如何使审稿人满意，并且让他们没有别的选择，只能同意论文发表。

)一、序言由于这是我个人的评论，因此在后面的叙述中我将使用第一人称，不过严格一些的作者不会在科技文献中使用第一人称。

在我35年研究工作的生涯中，我撰写了很多科技论文，每次当我打开从杂志编辑部寄来的装有我宝贝一样的手稿的信的时候，我总是迫不及待地拆开信封，结果是或者做一些小的修改，或者大幅度重写，甚至是判处死刑只能把手稿扔进垃圾桶。

论文写作中如何应对审稿人的修改意见与建议

论文写作中如何应对审稿人的修改意见与建议在论文写作中，审稿人的修改意见与建议是一项重要的环节，它能够对论文的质量和准确性起到关键性的提升作用。

然而，面对审稿人的修改意见与建议，很多作者都感到困惑和压力，不知道如何处理和回应。

本文将介绍一些应对审稿人修改意见与建议的方法和技巧。

首先，作者应该对审稿人的修改意见与建议保持积极的态度。

审稿人是出于学术和专业角度提出意见和建议的，在他们的指导下，论文的质量和准确性都能够得到提升。

因此，作者需要认识到审稿人的修改意见是对论文质量的一种投资和提升。

其次，作者在回应审稿人的修改意见时，需要认真阅读和理解每个修改建议的背景和原因。

审稿人提出的修改意见多数是基于他们对论文内容和结构的专业认识和经验，作者需要针对每个修改意见进行深入思考，理解修改的原因和意义。

接下来，作者需要准确和清晰地回应每个修改意见。

在回应修改意见时，作者应该明确自己对修改的认同和解释。

如果作者认为审稿人的修改意见不妥或错误，应该用事实和理论进行解释和辩护，提供充分的证据支持自己的观点。

另外，作者在回应修改意见时，也需要考虑到审稿人和读者的角度。

审稿人一般是领域内的专家和学者，他们会非常关注论文的学术和科学价值。

因此，作者应该注意结合审稿人和读者的角度进行修改和回应，使论文更加准确和严谨。

此外，作者还可以向审稿人寻求进一步的意见和建议。

在回应修改意见时，作者可以就自己的困惑和疑问向审稿人提问，以便更好地理解和处理修改建议。

这样不仅能够促进作者与审稿人之间的进一步交流，也有助于提高论文的质量和准确性。

最后，作者还应该在修改过程中保持耐心和毅力。

审稿人的修改意见通常不会一蹴而就，可能需要经过多次修改和完善。

因此，作者需要保持耐心和毅力，不断进行修改和优化，直到论文达到审稿人的要求和期望。

总结起来，论文写作中应对审稿人的修改意见与建议是一个关键的环节。

作者需要保持积极的态度，认真阅读和理解每个修改意见，准确和清晰地回应每个修改意见，并考虑审稿人和读者的角度进行修改和回应。

论文写作技巧如何应对审稿人的意见

论文写作技巧如何应对审稿人的意见在进行学术研究的过程中，发表论文是一个非常重要的环节。

然而，很多时候我们会面临审稿人提出的意见和建议，这对于我们来说是一个重要的挑战。

因此，了解如何应对审稿人的意见是非常关键的。

本文将向读者介绍一些应对审稿人意见的写作技巧，帮助你更好地回应审稿人的批评，提升论文质量。

1. 采取积极的态度当我们接收到审稿人的意见时，首先要保持积极的态度。

尽管审稿人可能提出了一些批评性的意见，但我们必须理解他们的目的是为了帮助我们改进论文。

因此，我们应该认真对待每一条意见，并且在回应时表达我们的感谢之情。

这种积极的态度不仅可以帮助我们更好地回应审稿人的意见，也有助于建立良好的学术关系。

2. 认真研究审稿人的意见在回应审稿人的意见之前，我们应该仔细研究每一条意见。

审稿人可能提出了一些修改论文的建议，而这些建议可能会显著改善我们的研究和论文质量。

因此，我们应该对每一条意见进行深入思考，并且进行必要的修改。

此外，我们还可以和同事或导师讨论审稿人的意见，以获取更多的观点和建议。

3. 分清主次，有选择地回应意见在回应审稿人的意见时，我们应该根据意见的重要性和实施的可行性来确定优先级。

对于那些对论文质量有重大影响的意见，我们必须取之以重，务必全面地回应并进行必要的修改。

而对于那些在文章写作技巧和细节方面的意见，我们可以根据情况有选择地回应。

此外，我们也可以在回应中陈述我们对于未能完全采纳某些意见的理由，并对此进行解释。

4. 善于与审稿人沟通与审稿人的沟通是非常重要的一环。

在回应审稿人的意见时，我们应该保持良好的沟通，以便更好地理解审稿人的意图。

如果我们对某些意见有疑问或不明白，我们可以通过邮件或其他方式主动与审稿人进行交流。

这样的沟通可以减少误解并加深双方的理解，有助于我们更好地修改论文。

5. 做好修改和润色回应审稿人的意见后，我们需要认真对论文进行修改和润色。

在进行修改时，我们应该遵循审稿人的建议，并进行大幅度的修改。

期刊论文修改与回复审稿意见有效应对审稿人意见的策略

期刊论文修改与回复审稿意见有效应对审稿人意见的策略审稿人意见是期刊论文发表过程中必不可少的环节，然而，这些审稿意见对作者来说常常是一道考验。

如何有效应对审稿人的意见，是每一位作者都需要面对的问题。

本文将探讨有效应对审稿人意见的策略，帮助作者在修改期刊论文时更加得心应手。

一、审稿人意见的分析和理解在开始修改期刊论文之前，作者首先需要仔细阅读审稿人的意见，并对意见进行分析和理解。

审稿人通常会提出修改意见和建议，这些意见可能涉及论文的内容、结构、方法、数据等多个方面。

作者需要理解审稿人的关注点和期望，明确自己的研究目标和论文的主旨。

二、审稿人意见的优先级排序在审稿人提出的多个意见中，有些是主要的、关键的意见，而有些则是次要的、可选的意见。

作者可以根据意见的重要性和实施的难易程度，将意见进行排序。

在修改时，应首先解决主要的、关键的意见，以确保论文的质量和完整性。

三、与审稿人沟通在进行修改时，作者如果对某些意见存在疑问或需要进一步解释，可以与审稿人进行沟通。

作者可以通过给审稿人发邮件或书信的方式，向审稿人提出问题或解释自己的想法。

审稿人通常愿意与作者进行交流，并会提供进一步的指导和建议。

四、修改论文根据审稿人的意见和建议，作者需要对论文进行相应的修改。

在修改时，作者应该注重论文的逻辑性和严谨性，保证论文的条理清晰、语句通顺。

同时，作者还需要确保所做的修改能够充分回应审稿人的意见，使论文更加完善。

五、回复审稿意见在对论文进行修改之后，作者需要撰写回复审稿意见的信函。

回复审稿意见的信函应该清晰明了，回应审稿人提出的每一个意见，并解释自己所做的修改。

在回复信中，作者可以感谢审稿人的耐心指导，并表达自己对审稿人的建议的接受和理解。

六、再次审稿前的准备在提交修改后的论文之前，作者需要仔细检查论文，确保修正的错误和疏漏。

此外，作者还应对论文进行语言和格式的校对，确保论文的表达流畅、准确、规范。

综上所述，作者在应对审稿人意见时应该认真分析和理解意见，并根据意见的重要性和实施难易程度进行排序。

如何正确回复论文审稿人意见

如何正确回复论文审稿人意见回复论文审稿人意见是一个至关重要的过程，它不仅是与审稿人之间进行学术交流的一个机会，也是提高论文质量的一个途径。

以下是关于如何正确回复论文审稿人意见的一些建议：1.感谢审稿人：在回复之前，首先要向审稿人表示感谢，感谢他们的时间和努力。

这表明你对审稿人的工作非常认可，并且愿意配合他们的建议和意见。

2.全面理解审稿人的意见：在回复之前，你需要仔细、全面地阅读审稿人对于你论文的批评和建议。

理解审稿人的意见非常重要，因为只有真正理解了他们的观点，才能做出正确的回应。

3.关注每一条意见：对于每一条审稿人的意见，都要进行详细的回复。

如果你同意审稿人的观点和建议，可以直接表示同意并且详细阐述你将如何修改这一部分。

如果你不同意审稿人的观点，也要给出有理有据的解释，并提供相关的研究依据。

4.语气要客观、冷静：在回复审稿人意见时，一定要保持冷静和客观的态度。

即使审稿人的意见有时候可能不公正或不准确，也不能用过激或情绪化的语言回复。

应该用事实和数据来支持自己的观点，并尽量避免争吵。

5.提供详细的解释和附加材料：在回复中，可以提供一些详细的解释和补充材料，以便更好地阐明自己的观点。

特别是在涉及复杂或争议性的问题上，提供更多的背景信息和分析有助于审稿人更好地理解你的立场。

6.意见回复要具体有效：在回复审稿人的意见时，要确保回复具体有效。

不要使用模糊或泛泛的回答，而是要提供详细的解释和实施计划。

此外，还需要清晰地回答审稿人的每一个问题。

7.谦虚并且尊重：在回复中，要保持谦虚和尊重的态度。

不管你同意与否，都要尊重审稿人的观点，并在回复中表示感谢。

尽量避免给审稿人带来冲突或争论的感觉，而是努力与他们形成良好的沟通和合作关系。

8.审稿人意见与论文的地位：最后一点是要明确审稿人的建议对于你的论文来说有多重要。

如果审稿人的意见是关于论文的一些重大问题，比如方法、结论等，那么你需要非常认真地对待，并且在回复中提供详细解释和修订计划。

如何回复审稿人意见

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 you r 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-05-0172Comment: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 fa ster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOV A)” 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. 3Standard 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 MMPsecretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive controlprogenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cellsobtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinicallyrelevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown tosecrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cellsfrom steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs arealso of interest.2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line representsMMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as abetter explanation of the method of the protocol.3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" comparedto control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used andresults should be presented as absolute concentrations and onlythen can these results be compared to those of the zymography.4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguishclearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cordblood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34enriched cells and discussed.5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed todetermine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMPactivity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however theyshould clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity ofthe inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.Minor comments:1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in theresults 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:"Migrationof 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 inMaterials 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-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 notdetected 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。

期刊论文的审稿与修改如何应对审稿人的意见和修改论文

期刊论文的审稿与修改如何应对审稿人的意见和修改论文在学术界，发表期刊论文是评估学者学术能力的重要依据之一。

然而，在期刊投稿的过程中，经常会面临来自审稿人的意见和修改建议。

本文将讨论如何应对审稿人的意见和修改论文，以提高论文的质量和被接受的几率。

一、审稿人的意见及建议的分类审稿人的意见和建议可以大致分为三类：内容意见、格式要求和语言修辞方面的意见。

1. 内容意见内容意见是审稿人就论文的学术质量、研究方法、数据分析等方面提出的建议或意见。

这些意见往往涉及论文的结构是否合理、数据处理的准确性以及研究发现的科学性等。

2. 格式要求审稿人可能对论文的格式要求提出建议，如插图的排版、参考文献的格式等。

这些建议通常是为了使论文更符合期刊的投稿要求。

3. 语言修辞方面的意见审稿人还可能对论文的语言表达和修辞提出意见。

这些意见包括语句表达的清晰度、逻辑性和语法错误等方面。

二、应对意见和修改论文的策略1. 认真阅读意见在收到审稿人的意见后，首先要认真阅读每一条意见，并理解其核心要点。

对于内容意见，要仔细思考审稿人的建议是否合理，是否能够提升论文的科学性和学术价值。

对于格式要求和语言修辞方面的意见，要仔细检查文中是否存在相应问题。

2. 分析和总结意见将审稿人的意见进行分类和总结，找出其中的共性和重点。

这样做有助于更好地处理和回应审稿人的建议，同时也能够更清晰地认识到自己论文的不足之处。

3. 保持积极的态度审稿人提出的意见和建议往往是为了促进文章质量的提升，所以要保持积极的态度。

即使有些意见可能会对自己原本的观点和研究做出较大改动，但要认识到这是正常的学术讨论过程，并从中学习和成长。

4. 逐条回应意见对于每一条意见，都要给予明确的回应和合理的解释。

如果同意审稿人的意见，要在回复中说明已进行了相应修改。

如果不同意，要给出充分的理由和证据。

这样能够有效地与审稿人进行沟通，展示自己对论文问题的深入思考和解决方案的合理性。

5. 修改论文根据审稿人的意见和建议，对论文进行必要的修改和改进。

学术论文的评审与修改如何应对审稿人意见和提升文章质量

学术论文的评审与修改如何应对审稿人意见和提升文章质量学术论文是科研工作者表达研究成果和思想观点的主要形式，然而在提交论文之后，作者往往需要经历评审和修改的过程。

审稿人的意见对于完善论文质量和提升学术影响力至关重要。

本文将介绍如何应对审稿人的意见并提升文章质量，以期帮助作者成功发表优质学术论文。

一、认真阅读和理解审稿意见当收到审稿人的意见时，首先要进行认真阅读和理解。

审稿意见通常涉及研究方法、结论、逻辑推理和文献引用等方面的问题。

作者应全面了解审稿人的批评和建议，注意审稿意见之间的相互关联，并将其视为提升文章质量的机会。

二、客观分析审稿意见在理解审稿人的意见后，作者不应激动或情绪化地看待批评。

相反，应以理性和客观的态度分析审稿意见的合理性和准确性。

有些意见可能是有根据的，可以从中发现文章的不足之处。

作者应该从审稿人的角度出发，审视自己的研究，并尝试找出问题的解决方案。

三、回应意见并解释修改方法对于审稿意见中的批评和建议，作者应提供积极的回应，并解释自己对于修改问题的看法和具体的修改方法。

回应应该准确、清晰地表达作者对于问题的理解，同时向审稿人展示自己对于修改方案的思考和努力。

这将是作者积极参与修改讨论的体现。

四、充分修改论文经过认真的分析和讨论后，作者应对论文进行全面的修改。

可能的修改包括但不限于：1. 修正方法和实验设计，以增强论文的可靠性和可重复性；2. 重新整理论文结构和段落，以提高逻辑推理和表达的清晰度；3. 添加或调整引用文献，以更好地支持研究观点；4. 修复语法、拼写和标点符号等细节错误；5. 添加图表、图像或示意图，以更好地展示实验结果和论文内容。

五、再次反思和修改在对论文进行全面修改之后，作者应再次反思自己的研究内容和表达方式。

回顾整个修改过程，思考审稿人的意见是否已经得到很好的回应，并根据需要作出进一步的修改和调整。

这个反思过程是对学术论文质量提升的重要环节。

六、征求同行意见并修订为了进一步提升论文质量，作者可以向同行学者寻求意见并进行修订。

尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见

尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见【知识】如何有效应对尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见1. 前言在学术界或写作领域，接受审稿人的意见是一个必不可少的步骤。

然而，有时我们会遇到尖酸刻薄的审稿人，他们的评论可能会对我们的自信心和创作动力造成打击。

本文将从应对尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见的角度出发，为大家分享一些建议和技巧。

2. 良好心态的重要性应对尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见时，首先要保持良好的心态。

我们要意识到审稿人提供意见是为了让我们的作品更完善，而不是对我们个人的攻击。

要学会接受批评，并将其视为自我提高的机会，不要被情绪影响判断。

3. 分辨有价值的意见尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见中，也会有一些有价值的建议。

我们需要学会分辨哪些意见是可以采纳的，哪些是纯粹的挑刺。

关注提出意见的理由和论据是否合理，是否能够提升作品的质量。

看该意见是否和审稿人其他评论有关联，是否是重复意见。

也可以请教其他专业人士或同行的意见，做出更全面的判断。

4. 保持沟通和尊重即使面对尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见，也要保持与其的良好沟通和尊重。

我们可以提出对这些意见的质疑，请求详细说明或举例，以便更好地理解其观点。

我们也可以表达我们对作品的看法和决策的理由，以传达我们的立场。

5. 自我反思和提升尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见也可以是我们自我反思和提升的契机。

我们要积极思考他们的观点是否有合理性，是否能够帮助我们提高写作技巧和表达能力。

通过自我反思并结合他人意见，我们可以不断完善自己的创作能力，并在写作过程中避免类似的问题出现。

6. 结语尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见对我们的创作动力和自信心带来了一定的挑战，但我们要学会以积极的心态来应对。

通过保持良好的心态，分辨有价值的意见，保持沟通和尊重，并进行自我反思和提升，我们能够更好地应对尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见，为自己的创作之路铺就更坚实的基石。

7. 个人观点与理解在我看来，尖酸刻薄的审稿人意见虽然有时会刺痛自尊心，但也是我们成长和进步的机会。

写作是一个不断学习的过程，从他人的意见中我们可以发现自身的不足，并通过改进提升自己的表达能力。

论文写作中如何应对修改与审稿意见

论文写作中如何应对修改与审稿意见在学术领域中，撰写论文是一个重要而繁琐的任务。

完成初稿后，接受修改和审稿意见是不可避免的环节。

然而，许多学者和研究人员可能会对修改和审稿意见感到困惑和沮丧。

本文将讨论如何有效应对修改与审稿意见，以提高论文的质量和对学术界的贡献。

一、接受意见并保持开放心态首先，接受修改和审稿意见并保持开放心态至关重要。

理解审稿人和编辑对论文的建议和批评是进步的关键。

尽管一些意见可能看似苛刻或不公正，但要保持冷静并考虑其合理性。

记住，审稿人和编辑是有经验和专业知识的人士，他们的意见往往能提供有价值的指导和改进方向。

二、仔细分析每条意见并作出改变细致分析每一条修改和审稿意见，并根据其指导意见进行修改。

审稿人和编辑的建议往往关注论文的结构、语法、可读性和准确性等方面。

这些意见可能要求你重新组织论文结构，改变段落顺序，增减或重写某些内容。

要有耐心和毅力，亲自动手修改并充分理解每个修改建议的原意。

三、寻求同行的意见和反馈除了审稿人和编辑的意见外，寻求同行的意见和反馈也是非常有帮助的。

这可以通过与同行学者进行讨论、参加学术会议或报告研究成果来实现。

同行的反馈可以帮助你发现论文中的潜在问题，同时也能为你提供更多的改进建议。

要虚心接受同行的意见，并将其纳入到修改过程中，以进一步提升论文质量。

四、注意语法和拼写错误在接受修改和审稿意见的过程中，不要忽视语法和拼写错误。

这些错误往往会给审稿人和编辑留下不专业或马虎的印象。

使用语法和拼写检查工具来纠正这些错误，并认真校对论文，确保其准确无误。

五、对于不同意的意见保持自信在修改和审稿的过程中，可能会出现一些与审稿人和编辑意见不一致的情况。

在这种情况下，你可以尊重他们的意见，但也要保持自信并坚持自己的论点。

如果你认为某些修改可能会影响到论文的主题或结论，你可以向编辑提供解释和支持材料，以更好地说明你的观点。

六、保持耐心和毅力并持续修改修改和审稿是一个漫长而不断的过程。

如何应对论文的审稿意见和修改建议

如何应对论文的审稿意见和修改建议论文审稿意见和修改建议是每位学者和研究者在学术交流中必须面对和应对的重要环节。

得到专家和同行的意见和建议，对于提升论文的质量和学术水平至关重要。

然而，如何正确应对这些审稿意见和修改建议也是一门艺术。

本文将就如何应对论文的审稿意见和修改建议进行讨论，以帮助读者更好地处理这一过程。

一、审慎阅读和理解意见和建议当我们收到审稿意见和修改建议时，首先要做的是仔细阅读和理解这些建议。

这些意见和建议可能来自于同行专家或者审稿人，他们对你的论文具有一定的专业知识和经验。

因此，我们需要充分尊重并认真对待这些审稿意见和修改建议。

阅读时，可以先整体把握意见的大致内容，然后逐条细读，并理解其中的核心观点和要求。

二、分析意见和建议的合理性和可行性在阅读和理解意见和建议之后，我们需要对其进行合理性和可行性的分析。

有些意见可能来自于审稿人的个人观点和喜好，需要我们进行客观鉴别和筛选。

而有些修改建议可能与我们的研究方向和论文内容不太吻合，需要我们进行适度的调整和取舍。

在分析的过程中，我们要明确自己的研究目标和论文的主题，并据此判断哪些意见和建议对于提升论文质量有实际帮助。

三、主动与审稿人或同行专家进行沟通和讨论通过阅读和分析意见和建议后，我们可以主动与审稿人或同行专家进行沟通和讨论。

这是一个很好的机会，可以进一步了解他们的意见和建议背后的考量和原因，并与他们交换观点、解决疑惑。

通过这种方式，我们可以更好地理解审稿人或同行专家的期望和要求，并得到更具针对性的建议和指导。

在与他们沟通过程中，我们要保持谦虚和开放的心态，尊重他们的专业意见，同时也可以就自己的研究进行解释和辩护。

四、认真推敲并逐条修改论文在理解和分析意见和建议的基础上，我们需要认真推敲并逐条修改论文。

针对每条意见和建议，我们要审视自己的论文，并思考如何对其进行改善。

有些修改可能只涉及细节的调整，有些则需要我们对整个结构和论证进行重新设计和布局。

如何避免审稿人的大斧

如何避免审稿人的大斧译者序：本文是发表在最近一期IEEE/ASME J MEMS的一篇关于如何撰写科技论文的文章。

作者Stephen D. Senturia（MIT电子系教授）从自己作为论文作者和审稿人双重角色的经验出发，对如何撰写科技论文发表了一些非常中肯也非常重要的建议。

作者作为IEEE 系列杂志中几个杂志的审稿人、编辑，对这些杂志有透彻的了解，因此，相信这些建议会对大家有些帮助；同时，作者的建议是通用的，对其它领域的作者也会有所帮助。

如何避免审稿人的大斧摘要编辑注：Stephen D. Senturia从1992年IEEE/ASME J MEMS（2002年影响因子2.8，译者注）创刊以来就一直是该杂志的编委会成员，并在1998年被提名为高级编辑。

这些连同他1985年－1995年作为IEEE T Electron Dev（2002年影响因子1.9，译者注）Solid-State Sensors的编辑的经验，作者已经累计具有17年作为IEEE杂志编辑的经验。

这些年里，Steve（作者名字的简称，译者注）总结了论文作者们给审稿人带来的大量的问题，因此我们邀请他撰写了下面的这篇“给作者的建议”，告诉大家如何使审稿人满意，并且让他们“没有别的选择”，只能同意论文发表。

摘要：根据Steve多年作为J MEMS编辑的经验，本文是他给科技论文作者们的一些建议。

如果能够遵循这些建议，将大大降低论文在审稿过程中遭到拒绝的风险。

本文的前提是有些事情会使审稿人感到气愤，并且一旦他们开始气愤，就会做出消极和伤害性的决定。

因此，作者用审稿人的“大斧”来比喻这些决定，并且建议如何避免它们。

如何避免审稿人的大斧——一、序言由于这是我个人的评论，因此在后面的叙述中我将使用第一人称，不过严格一些的作者不会在科技文献中使用第一人称。

如何应对审稿人意见并修改论文

如何应对审稿人意见并修改论文在学术界，发表一篇优秀的论文是每个研究人员都追求的目标。

然而，往往在投稿后，我们会收到审稿人提出的修改意见。

这些意见旨在帮助我们进一步完善我们的研究，提高论文的质量。

本文将介绍如何应对审稿人意见并进行论文修改的技巧和步骤。

一、审视和理解审稿人意见首先，当我们收到审稿人提出的修改意见时，我们需要冷静客观地审视并深入理解意见的具体内容。

这需要我们仔细阅读审稿人的建议和批评，并确保我们对这些意见有清楚的理解。

在阅读的过程中，我们可以将审稿人意见分为两类：技术性建议和科学性意见。

技术性建议是指纠正语法、标点符号、拼写错误等细节方面的修改意见。

这些是相对容易修改的，并且对改善论文质量非常重要。

科学性意见是指审稿人对我们的研究方法、结果和结论提出的建议和评论。

这类意见可能会更加具有挑战性，需要我们进行更深入的思考和分析。

二、回应审稿人意见一旦我们理解了审稿人的意见，我们需要根据这些意见进行回应。

为了回应审稿人的意见，我们可以采取以下步骤：1.认真回答每一条意见：我们应该逐条回答审稿人提出的修改意见，并在回答中说明我们对每个问题的处理方式。

这样可以展示我们的思考和解决问题的能力，同时也有助于建立与审稿人的良好沟通。

2.解释争议问题的原因：如果我们对审稿人提出的某些建议持不同意见，我们应该在回答中解释我们的立场并提供支持。

这样可以促进审稿人对我们观点的理解，并可能改变其初步的看法。

3.合理修改和补充：在回答审稿人意见的同时，我们需要根据意见对论文进行相应的修改和补充。

我们应该尽可能地满足审稿人的要求，同时确保修改后的论文更加完善和具有说服力。

三、论文修改的技巧和注意事项除了回应审稿人意见外，还有一些论文修改的技巧和注意事项值得我们注意：1.保持冷静和客观：修改论文时，我们应该保持冷静和客观的态度。

不要因为审稿人的批评而产生情绪上的过度反应，而是积极面对问题并寻求解决办法。

2.精益求精：审稿人提出的修改意见是对我们研究的指导和提高的机会。

编辑部忽略审稿人的反对意见

编辑部忽略审稿人的反对意见
在学术界，审稿人起着举足轻重的作用，在确保文章质量和可靠性方面发挥着重要的作用。

然而，有时候编辑部可能会忽略审稿人的反对意见，这种做法可能会引起一系列问题。

忽略审稿人的反对意见可能导致文章质量下降。

审稿人是经过严格筛选的专家，他们的反对意见通常是基于对文章内容的深入分析和专业知识的理解。

如果编辑部不重视这些反对意见，可能会导致一些错误、不准确或者不严谨的信息被发布出去。

这将对学术界的声誉和可信度造成负面影响。

忽略审稿人的反对意见可能会导致学术界的偏见和不公平。

审稿人的意见往往是客观和中肯的，他们会根据事实和证据提出自己的看法。

如果编辑部不重视这些反对意见，可能会造成某些研究方向或观点的偏袒，导致学术界的偏见和不公平现象的出现。

这将严重影响学术界的发展和研究的进展。

忽略审稿人的反对意见还可能会导致科研资源的浪费。

审稿人的反对意见通常是基于他们对相关领域的研究经验和专业知识的理解，他们的建议和意见可以帮助作者改进文章，并提高其质量。

如果编辑部忽略这些意见，可能会导致作者花费更多的时间和资源在修改和完善文章上，而这些工作可能是完全可以避免的。

这将对科研资源的浪费和效率造成不必要的损失。

编辑部忽略审稿人的反对意见是一种不负责任的做法，它可能会导致文章质量下降、学术界的偏见和不公平以及科研资源的浪费。

为了确保学术界的健康发展和研究的可靠性，编辑部应该重视审稿人的意见，并根据其专业知识和经验做出合理的决策。

只有这样，才能使学术界更加公正、客观和可信。