Revision Note SCI回复编辑审稿人回信

合集下载

SCI 审稿意见回复范文

论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：Dear Mr. XXX,Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.To submit a revision, go to and log in as an Author.You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic pro A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather thana metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph>>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscriptthat you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviourin SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth（注：多处语法错误）.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this question andit is clearer （注：不具体）.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysissection to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)建议修改稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscriptto Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.Replies to Reviewer #1:Xxxxx （略）Replies to Reviewer #2:Xxxxx （略）Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its ph armacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read moresmoothly.Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in theguideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2). 论文题目： Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer 所投杂志：BMC Cancer.结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。

SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧

SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。

这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。

好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。

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。

sci给编辑的回信模板

sci给编辑的回信模板示例1:亲爱的编辑，我希望这封信能够表达我对于投稿的期望以及对于SCI杂志的重视。

我非常感谢您的评审和研究人员为我的研究工作所做出的努力和宝贵意见。

在前一次评审的基础上，我已经根据您的建议对论文进行了进一步的修改和完善。

首先，我重点解决了您对于论文结构和逻辑连贯性的担忧。

我重新组织了研究材料，并对论文进行了全面的重写。

我相信这些改进能够使读者更加清楚地理解我的研究目的、方法和结果。

此外，在您的建议下，我还对实验数据进行了更详细的分析和解释。

我将这些结果与相关文献加以对比和讨论，以支持我的观点和结论。

我相信这些变动将有助于提升论文的质量和学术价值。

对于那些在论文中存在的缺陷和不足，我也做出了一些必要的修正。

我重新审视了排版、语法和拼写错误，并确保使用了正确的引文格式。

此外，我还与合著作者进行了讨论，对于一些技术细节进行了澄清，以避免引起读者的困惑。

在这封回信中，我希望能够得到您的最终决定以及下一步的指导。

我深知SCI杂志对于优质研究的要求极高，因此我竭尽全力对论文进行了改进。

我真诚地希望我的努力能够得到认可，并有机会在您的杂志上发表。

再次感谢您对论文的评审和宝贵意见。

我期待着您的回复，并愿意进行进一步的修改和调整，以便使论文更适合您的杂志。

谢谢您的时间和耐心。

最诚挚的问候，[您的姓名]示例2:尊敬的编辑，感谢贵刊对我所提交的稿件的关注并提供意见和建议。

我非常感激能获得专业编辑的批评和指导，这对于我来说是一个宝贵的机会来提高我的写作技巧和学术水平。

根据您的指导，我已经对我的文章进行了修改和改进。

我努力克服了您所指出的问题，并在文章中作出了必要的调整。

我衷心希望这些修改能够使我的文章更具有学术价值，以及更符合贵刊的发表标准。

以下是我对您提出的主要问题的回答和我的修改说明：1. 问题一：缺乏清晰的问题陈述和研究目的。

修改措施：在文章的开头重新阐述了研究问题，并明确了研究目的。

这样可以帮助读者更好地了解文章的主要焦点。

论文根据审稿意见修改后如何给编辑回信

论文根据审稿意见修改后如何给编辑回信论文根据审稿意见修改后如何给编辑回信回信示例Dear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章编号). Those comments are all valuable and very 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 correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.The main corrections in the paper and the resp onds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: xxxxxx2. Respons e to comment: (…...简要列出意见……)Response: xxxxxx……逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of ……We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……It is really true as Reviewer suggested that ……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’ssuggestion.As Reviewer suggested that ……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见:Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:同上述Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “……”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deletedWe tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.Best regards,xx, xx and xx给编辑回信常用语1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that –One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefull y and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3. Thank you for your letter of –and for the referee’s comments concerning ourm anuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You wil l see that our original findings are confirmed.5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript.7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.11. I f eel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature of the cells, we consider it essential.15. The running title has been changed to “”.16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake of isotope and assaying hexokinase.17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful to the referees for pointing out their error.18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those originally submitted and to which a scale has been added.20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redrawn Figure 3 and 4.21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been added to the text and Reference section. These are:22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of thereferees concerning improvement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for suggesting how to improve our paper.25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our doing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees。

如何回复审稿人意见

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision — authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted inSupplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations ofXXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (SupplementaryFig.) that summarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments tobetter clarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify thepoint that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request wehave used XXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted inSupplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 intothe new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new dataare depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that ….We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was tooweek and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDFformat.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In orderto better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision – authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; inthe new experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performedin XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to ….To address the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that….To further confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were correctedin the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and itsresult is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. wererepeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1,above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision – authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’ssuggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that ….The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….inour previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in thismanuscript we focused on ….Welcome To Download !!!欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考！。

SCI 审稿意见回复范文

论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：Dear Mr. XXX,Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.To submit a revision, go to /lfs/ and log in as an Author.You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@ Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.Answers to Reviewers’questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum”to make it more clear and smooth （注：多处语法错误）.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)建议修改稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.Replies to Reviewer #1:Xxxxx （略）Replies to Reviewer #2:Xxxxx （略）Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2). 论文题目：Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer所投杂志：BMC Cancer.结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。

sci回复审稿人意见模板

sci回复审稿人意见模板Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript entitled [Manuscript Title]. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been extremely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work. Following your suggestions, we have made the necessary revisions, and we believe that these changes have considerably strengthened the manuscript.Below, we address each of your specific comments in detail:1. [Reviewer's Comment]In response to this comment, we have [explain the revisions made]. These changes have [justify how the revisions have addressed the concern] and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.2. [Reviewer's Comment]We have carefully considered this comment and have [explain the revisions made]. This has [describe the impact of the revisions on the manuscript] and has improved the overall flow and organization of the manuscript.3. [Reviewer's Comment]We acknowledge the reviewer's concern and have [describe the actions taken to address the concern]. This has [explain the impactof the revisions on the reported results] and enhances the reliability and validity of our findings.We sincerely appreciate your thorough and thoughtful review, which has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of this manuscript. We hope that the revisions we made have adequately addressed your concerns. If you have any further suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.Once again, thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript.Best regards,[Your Name]。

SCI回复审稿人的回信技巧

这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。

好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。

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。

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。

RevisionNoteSCI回复编辑审稿人回信

Dear Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editor,Thanks a lot for your helpful comments on our manuscript.Now we are submitting this revised version after incorporating reviewer ’s comments and making improvements.Yours sincerely,Kobe BryantDear Reviewers,We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments to improve this paper. We have addressed all issues raised be the reviewer. The amendments made are mentioned below with reference to appropriate paragraphs and sections of the revised manuscript.Response to Reviewer #1[Comment 1] Very Good efforts are done for experimental setup.[Answer ] Thank you for your encouragement of the research.[Comment 2] How are the Theoretical modes shapes are calculated and presented in Fig. 2-4.[Answer ] We have added the theoretical transverse mode shape function of a free paraboloidal membrane shell in Section 3.1 on page 8. This assumed mode shape function was obtained and validated in our previous study and details could be found in ref.[27]. With this theoretical mode shape function, one can achieve the theoretical mode shapes of the paraboloidal shell in Fig. 2-4. ------In a previous study of a free paraboloidal shell , with experienced “trail -and-error” and verification, a new transverse mode shape function of a paraboloidal membrane shell with free boundary condition has been derived [27]()31cos sin cos k k k U A k k φφψ=+ (8)where the mode number k =1,2,3…, A k is the k th modal amplitude, ϕ is the meridional angle measured from the pole, and ψ is the circumferential angle.[Comment 3] From Table 4, Suppression ratio for First mode it is 63.9% and for Second mode it is 17%, along with complexity of unpredicted nonlinear behaviors, system uncertainties, model imperfections is it position of actuators also matters, discuss[Answer ] We have added a paragraph to discuss this phenomenon on page 17.--------Table 4 indicates that the suppression ratio of the first order mode is more significant than that of the second mode. This is qualitatively consistent with the theoretical results obtained in a previous study that the actuator control effect gradually decreases at higher modes since the inherent membrane effect diminishes as the mode increases [27]. Furthermore, since the sensor and actuator chosen in this experiment is near the excitation position, according to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, vibration amplitude of the first mode is larger than that of the second mode at that point. This could also contribute to the suppression difference between the two modes. Also, the suppressionratio could be influenced by the selection of the control parameters and the complexity of unpredicted nonlinear behaviors, system uncertainties, model imperfections, etc. of the paraboloidal shell system.[Comment 4]Any study done on different gains other than K sen =20 and K act =50 (Page No. 11, last para)[Answer] According to the material properties (see Appendix) of the PVDF used in this experiment, we obtain the K sen =20 and K act =50 by parameter identification firstly. That is to say, these scale gains are the most appropriate for this kind of PVDF patches. Therefore, we did not carry out other experiments on different gains in this paper.[Comment 5]The sensor voltages are very low, is it practically possible to get actuation voltage in space[Answer] Thank you for your advice. The sensing voltage of a PVDF patch is usually low and should be amplified before entering the controller. However, this sensing signal is only used to mirror the vibration amplitude of the shell at certain position. The actuation voltage for a PVDF actuator would be hundreds of volts and this driving voltage can be supplied by high-proportion voltage amplifier modules today which is practical for space use. Additionally, some lower voltage (100V-150V) driving piezoelectric materials have been widely used in structure dynamic control and these materials may also be used in space in the future.Thank you again for your comments and we look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.Yours sincerely,Kobe Bryant。

sci回复审稿人意见范文

sci回复审稿人意见范文标题：以SCI回复审稿人意见范文尊敬的审稿人：感谢您对我们的研究工作的审阅并提出宝贵的意见。

我们针对您的每条意见进行了认真的思考和修改，现将我们的回复逐条陈述如下：1. 关于您提到的第一点意见，我们已经将文章中的参考文献的引用方式进行了修正，确保每个引用都符合SCI的要求。

2. 在您的第二点意见中，您提到不要输出公式。

我们已经将文章中的公式进行了修改，确保没有输出任何公式，以避免给读者带来困惑。

3. 您所提到的第三点要求内容不能重复，我们已经对文章进行了仔细的检查和修改，确保没有重复的内容出现，以提高文章的整体质量和可读性。

4. 为了使文章的结构更加清晰，我们在文章中使用了恰当的段落和标题，以便读者更好地理解和阅读。

我们还对整体格式进行了规范和整洁的调整，确保文章的排版清晰易读。

5. 您的第五点要求不要包含图片链接，我们已经将文章中的图片链接全部删除，以避免干扰读者的阅读体验。

6. 我们已经注意到您的第六点要求，不会在文章中出现“如图所示”的表达方式，以避免给读者带来困惑。

7. 您所提到的第七点要求不要重复您的问题，我们已经注意到并避免了在回复中重复您的问题。

8. 您的第八点要求不要进行自我介绍，我们在回复中不会进行任何自我介绍。

9. 我们已经对回复中的要点进行了清晰的表达，确保语句通顺，并尽可能使用丰富的词汇，以提高回复的质量。

10. 为了让回复内容更加易于理解，我们尽量使用中文描述，避免使用复杂的专业术语，以确保回复内容准确无误。

11. 最后，我们再次感谢您对我们研究工作的审阅和提出的宝贵意见。

我们已经对您的每条建议进行了认真的修改和改进，相信这样能够进一步提高论文的质量和学术价值。

希望我们的回复能够满足您的要求，如果还有其他任何问题或建议，请随时告知。

再次感谢您的审阅和帮助！谢谢！此致敬礼。

用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件

用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件众所周知，外审专家对于文章的主要批评意见是非常重要的，因此作者对于这些意见的回复也是尤为关键。

本文就如何用英文就其意见进行回复做一下简单说明:1、In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it ispossible to say that您的回复:外审专家对于表1中xxx所提出的问题现已改正。

而后面的一些小改动则不会影响文章对结果的解释。

One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1 has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3，paragraph 1(line 3-8)and 2(line 6-11).These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2、我非常仔细地阅读了外审专家的意见，而且我认为文章仅仅因为缺少xxx而被拒绝刊登的。

我承认本应在丈中包含XXX 然后这仅是出于对文章简洁的考量，没有提供相关数据而非疏忽。

I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lacked toxicity data. I admit that l did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3、您对于我文章“XXX”的回复以及外审专家的意见。

SCI文章返修回复信模版Response Letter

Thank you very much for your letter and advice on our manuscript. We have resubmited new version of graphs in accordance with recommendations of the technical editor. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revision is acceptable and look forward to hearing from you soon.With best wishes,Below, please find the comments in black, followed by our responses in red. Exact changes in the manuscript are also presented in red font.We have resubmited new version of graphs in accordance with recommendations of the technical editor.We do not insist on color print.We have submited the agreement.We agreed to waive the honorarium and a separate letter with our written confirmation and scanned signature was sended by e-mail(letter S).Unfortunately, sharper figures were unavailable. We have removed horizontal linesin fig. 4.（专业文档是经验性极强的领域，无法思考和涵盖全面，素材和资料部分来自网络，供参考。

letter to editor 回复编辑的信(SCI)

Dear Dr. XXX,Thank you for arranging a timely review for our manuscript. We are pleased to know that our study is of general interest for the readers of NUTRITION. We have carefully evaluated the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions, r esponded to these suggestions point-by-point, and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes made to the text are in red so that they may be easily identified. With regard to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:Enclosures:(1)Correspondences to your reviewers;(2)One copy of the revised manuscript;(3)A floppy disk containing the revised manuscript.(4)Copyright assignmentTo reviewer#11.The author should add a few review articles on ghrelin for readers in theIntroduction.We added two reviews in our revised manuscript.2.The increase in ghrelin levels do not necessary indicate that weight loss in diseaseis well compensated (Introduction and Discussion). This may be interpreted to be insufficient to recover to the previous body weight.There is possibility that the increase in ghrelin levels may result from the insufficient to recover to the previous body weight, but it is more likely that the increase in ghrelin level indicate that weight loss in disease is well compensated.Shimizu et al1 reported that baseline plasma ghrelin level was significantly higher in cachectic patients with lung cancer than in noncachectic patients and control subjects. As weight loss is a chronic process and ghrelin levels may change more rapid than weight loss, the increase in ghrelin in those chronic diseases is unlikely result from the insufficient to recover to the previous body weight. Moreover, this author also reported that follow-up plasma ghrelin level increased in the presence of anorexia after chemotherapy, which further suggests that the increase ghrelin level may represent a compensatory mechanism under catabolic–anabolic imbalance in cachectic patients with lung cancer1.3.The authors should refer to the original report that IL-1b decrease plasma ghrelinlevels(Gastroentelorogy 120:337-345,2001)We referred this article as the reviewer suggested. In fact, this is a mistake of us. Many thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.4.Ref. 13 dose not include data on ghrelin.We are so sorry to make this mistake for citing the Ref.13. We replaced the reference in the paper.5.There is no report that desacyl ghrelin stimulates food intake. It is the consensusat present acyl ghrelin is involved in feeding response to starvation. Therefore, the authors should be careful about their interpretation described in the last paragraph in page 10.We made it clear in the paper that ghrelin has two isoforms (“active”and “inactive”). Only the “active”isoform is involved in feeding response tostarvation. But the “inactive”isoform has other activities like anti-proliferative activity on tumor cell lines as described in the manuscript.To reviewer#2Major comments1.Earlier studies have shown that circulating ghrelin level is increased inunderweight patients with CHF, lung cancer, and liver cirrhosis. In the present study, however, plasma ghrelin level was decreased despite a significant weight loss in COPD. In addition, earlier studies have reported that circulating ghrelin correlated positively with BMI in patients with CHF and lung cancer. However, the present study demonstrated that plasma ghrelin level correlated positively with BMI in COPD patients. Thus, there are considerable discrepancies between the present study and earlier studies. These discrepancies should be discussed in detail. The author also stated the regulation of ghrelin secretion was disturbed in COPD patients. However, they did not clarify this mechanism.We stated that the role of ghrelin in patients with COPD may be different from its role in CHF, cancer and liver cirrhosis and discussed this difference in the last paragraph of page 9.Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added that “plasma ghrelin correlated positively with percent predicted residual volume and residual volume/total lung capacity ratio”as the evidence for further supporting that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin levels.2.The authors demonstrated that plasma ghrelin level correlated negatively withplasma TND-a and CRP in COPD patients. However, Nagaya et al. have shown that plasma ghrelin level correlates positively with plasma TNF-a level in patients with CHF. This discrepancy should be discussed.According to the reviewer indicated, we discussed this discrepancy in the second paragraph of page 9.3.The author stated that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation ofplasma ghrelin level in COPD. The authors should describle the relationship between plasma ghrelin level and pulmonary function in COPD.There are evidences that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin level in lung diseases with respiratory abnormalities2,3. As our study was designed to investigate whether the plasma ghrelin levels are increased or decreased in COPD and whether the plasma ghrelin levels relates to the increased systemic inflammation in those patients, so we didn’t analysis the relationship between plasma ghrelin level and pulmonary function.Minor comments1.Circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm. Therefore, the authorsshould describle the limitation of their measurement of ghrelin in single samples.It’s true that circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm and to monitor the ghrelin levels in different time points is better than just measured a single sample. However, we collected the samples at the fasting state (from 9:00 p.m. on the previous night.) by venipuncture at 7:00 a.m. as most studies did2,4. Soour results can exclude the possibility that the difference between groups was result from the circadian rhythm of ghrelin and are well compared with other studies.2.In the Results section, plasma ghrelin level in healthy controls was different withthat in 0.25+0.22ng/ml, whereas, in Figure 1A, it was approximately 1.8ng/ml.We fixed this in our revised manuscript. We are so sorry to make this mistake.To reviewer#31.About the paper of Itoh et al in AJRCC.As the reviewer said, the study by Itoh et al was not published when the current manuscript were submitted. We discussed the difference between the findings of their study and our study in revised manuscript.2.AbstractConclusion: “plasma ghrelin decreased in COPD”. This sounds like the authors have followed subjects for a long time and that the diagnosis COPD was conformed, the plasma ghrelin decreased. This was however not the aim nor the case-a reformulation is necessary.We fixed this as the reviewer suggested in our revised manuscript.3.Introduction(1)Page 2. Ref.1. is a letter to the editor in Br J Nutr and is a commentconcering an earlier published paper. It is not a reference that support the statement. Several other references exist in the literature to be used instead.Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We replaced this reference by other one.(2)Page 2, line 5. “To understand weight loss mechanisms in this disease may behelpful to improve quality of life in these patients”. Do you really think that if we researchers understand the mechanisms that automatically would make the patients happier?We replaced this sentence with “To understand weight loss mechanisms in this disease may be helpful to combat weight loss in these patients”4.Methods(1)Patients: How were the patient and control subjects selected?The authors state that none of the control subjects was taking and medications-was that also the case for the patients?That was also the case for the patients. In fact, most of the COPD patients in China do not take any medications when the disease is clinically stable because of economic reason.Page 4, line 2. A short description of ATS criteria would be helpful for readers who are not familiar with those criteria.As those criteria are widely used by researcher and physicians, we did not describe them in our paper as some paper did. If you think it is necessary to do so, we may add a short description.Page4, line3, what do you mean by “other diseases”? COPD patients mostoften have a lot of other diseases.We are so sorry to mis-express this - we just means that those patients did not have the disease that known to affect the plasma ghrelin level. We fixed it in our revised manuscript.Page 4, line 5. If I understand it correctly, none of the COPD patients were smokers or ex-smokers, i.e. another reason exists for their COPD. Cigarette smoking is the main cause of COPD, but here you have studied patients having other reasons for the disease. What dose this mean regarding the representativity of the study group?Could it affect the results in some way?Smoking increases the plasma ghrelin level5. It is difficult for us to define “ex-smokers” because there is no study about that whether the ex-smoking will affect the plasma ghrelin level or not. This may lead to the representativity problem. However, those patients in our study still lost the weight and had system inflammation as most COPD patients did. Further study should be designed to investigate the effect of ex-smoking on plasma ghrelin level.Page 4, line 6.Why do the authors refer to Whatmore et al? That study investigated ghrelin in healthy adolescents and has nothing to do with factor known to affect serum ghrelin level.We are sorry to make this mistake. We replaced this reference.(2)Body compositionPage 4, last line – page 5, line1. The deuterium dilution study performed by Baarends et al was using arm – to – foot bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy. In the current manuscript the foot – to – foot bioelectrical impedance assessment is used. The readers are lead to believe that the foot – to – foot BIA is also validated with deuterium dilution in COPD patients, which I think is not the case.Thanks for the carefulness of the reviewer. However, there are still evidences that our method is well correlated with DEXA6and arm –to –foot bioelectrical impedance7, so it is appropriate to use this method in our study. However, because those sentences will lead to the confusion, we deleted them in revised manuscript according to suggestion of the reviewer.Page 5, line 4. The %fat was calculated by the machine. It should be stated on which material these calculations are based on – healthy subject? –young or old? – How many.According to the instruction of the manufactory, we selected the standard model for this calculation (the other model was athletic). We stated this in the revised manuscript.(3)StatisticalA reference by Scols et al is used to strengthen the use of values below the detection limit and the use of log. Other reasons need to be provided. What if Schols et al did a statistical error using values that were below the detection limit? There do exist statistical reasonsfor log the values –do they exist in this manuscript?It’s very important to select a suitable statistical method for process the data. There are 6 data below the detection limit in ghrelin and 1 data in leptin. Ifthese data were discarded, it may increase the possibility of type two error as lower ghrelin levels were exclude. However, if the data were analyzed originally, it may increase the possibility of type one error as they below the detection limit.So it is reasonable to adopt the method used by Schols et al.As to log transformation, we added the necessary information in the text according to the opinion of the reviewer.5.DiscussionPage 8. line 2-3. COPD patients had lower ghrelin levels compared to the control subjects. Did the control subjects have “normal” ghrelin values?We selected seventeen age-matched healthy males as control subjects.Those subjects were healthy. So we can take their ghrelin levels as “normal”ghrelin values. However, we think true “normal ghrelin values” should be based on large population study.Page9. line 18. Following “CHF, cancer and liver cirrhosis” a reference is needed here.We added references as the reviewer suggested.Page9. last line.ghrelin instead of gherlin.We fixed it.Page 11. Delete the summary, it is the same as the conclusion in the abstract.We wrote the summary according to the guideline for author of the journal. If you think the summary should be cut, we may delete it.6.ReferenceAs mentioned above, some of the references are not appropriate. They should be replaced by more appropriate and explanatory references.Many thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We replaced those references in the revised manuscript.References:1. Shimizu, Y., Nagaya, N., Isobe, T., et al. Increased plasma ghrelin level in lung cancer cachexia. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 7742. Itoh, T., Nagaya, N., Yoshikawa, M., et al. Elevated Plasma Ghrelin Level in Underweight Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;3. Haqq, A. M., Stadler, D. D., Jackson, R. H., et al. Effects of growth hormone on pulmonary function, sleep quality, behavior, cognition, growth velocity, body composition, and resting energy expenditure in Prader-Willi syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88: 22064. Nagaya, N., Uematsu, M., Kojima, M., et al. Elevated circulating level of ghrelin in cachexia associated with chronic heart failure: relationships between ghrelin and anabolic/catabolic factors. Circulation 2001; 104: 20345. Fagerberg, B., Hulten, L. M.,Hulthe, J. Plasma ghrelin, body fat, insulin resistance, and smoking in clinically healthy men: the atherosclerosis and insulin resistance study. Metabolism 2003; 52: 14606. Tyrrell, V. J., Richards, G., Hofman, P., et al. Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable tool for the measurement of body composition in children. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord2001; 25: 2737. Nunez, C., Gallagher, D., Visser, M., et al. Bioimpedance analysis: evaluation of leg-to-leg system based on pressure contact footpad electrodes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: 524一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。

sci审稿意见回复格式

sci审稿意见回复格式
尊敬的审稿人：
非常感谢您对我们的论文进行仔细的审阅，并提出了宝贵的意见和建议。

我们非常重视您的意见，特此做出如下回复：
首先，我们非常感谢您对论文的认真阅读和审阅。

您提到的问题确实是我们在写作过程中没有充分考虑到的，我们深感抱歉。

针对您提出的具体问题，我们已经进行了仔细的修改和改进。

以下是我们对每个问题的具体回复：
1. 您提到我们没有提供足够的背景知识和文献支持。

我们已经重新编写了相关背景部分，并引入了更多的文献支持，以确保我们的论点更加有力且可信。

2. 您指出我们的实验设计存在一些缺陷。

我们已经重新审视了实验设计，并对其中的问题进行了修正和完善。

我们会在修稿中详细介绍这些改进的措施。

3. 您的审稿意见中提到了我们对某些概念和表述的不准确性。

我们再次审阅了论文，对这些表述进行了修正，并在文章中添加了更清晰的解释来确保读者能够准确理解我们的观点。

4. 您的建议中提到我们可以扩展一些实验证据来支持我们的结论。

我们已经考虑到了这一点，并正在进行相关实验以进一步验证我们的结果。

在修订过程中，我们还对论文的结构进行了进一步的优化，以提高文章的逻辑性和可读性。

我们衷心希望这些修改和改善能够满足您的要求，并使论文更加完善和有说服力。

在此再次感谢您的审稿意见和建议。

我们由衷地希望您能对我们对论文进行的修改和改进表示满意。

如果您还有其他意见或建议，我们也非常愿意听取。

谢谢您的帮助和支持！
祝好，
作者。

如何回复审稿人意见

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major commentsreferee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous. Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support theconcept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig. S1…suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) inSupplementary Fig S. to support…requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Supplementary Fig.) thatsummarizes…Minor commentshave removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.have added statistics to Fig 5C.have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments to better clarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the point that…agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we have us ed XXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi by quantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig. Reviewer #3:of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that…. response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new data are depicted in Suppplementary Fig.agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too week and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible the magnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In order to better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision –authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is genera lly interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; in the new exp eriment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXX bycomparing…referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. To address the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To further confirm….Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig.demonstrate that….to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and its result isincluded in the revised Fig.to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision –authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.#2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’s suggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.#2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….in our previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript we focused on ….。

回复sci编辑部邮件范文

回复sci编辑部邮件范文Dear Editor,Thank you for your email.I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled "The Role of Mitochondrial Function in Age-Related Disease" submitted by Dr.Jane Doe and co-authors.尊敬的编辑，感谢您的来信。

我很高兴地通知您，我已经仔细审阅了由Dr.Jane Doe及其同事提交的题为“线粒体功能在年龄相关疾病中的作用”的手稿。

After a thorough evaluation, I am satisfied with the quality of the research presented in the manuscript.The authors have conducted comprehensive experiments and provided a clear discussion of their findings.The results presented in the paper contribute valuable insights into the understanding of mitochondrial dysfunction in age-related diseases, which is of great significance in the field of aging research.经过全面评估，我对手稿中呈现的研究质量感到满意。

作者们进行了全面的实验，并清楚地讨论了他们的发现。

论文中呈现的结果对手稿中呈现的研究质量感到满意。

作者们进行了全面的实验，并清楚地讨论了他们的发现。

sci修回意见回复模板

sci修回意见回复模板“sci修回意见回复模板”回复模板尊敬的审稿人/编委/编辑：首先，感谢您对我们的研究工作给予的重视并提出了宝贵的意见和建议。

我们非常重视您的意见，经过认真研究和讨论，我们对您提出的问题进行了深入分析，并做出了相应的修订。

现针对您的意见逐一进行回复如下：1. Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the necessary revisions accordingly.非常感谢您的深入评论。

我们已经仔细考虑了您的建议，并相应地进行了修订。

2. We agree with your point that the research could be strengthened by providing more experimental data. Therefore, we have conducted additional experiments on [specific aspect or parameter], and the new data are included in the revised manuscript.我们同意您的观点，即通过提供更多的实验数据可以进一步加强研究的可信度。

因此，我们针对[具体方面或参数]进行了额外的实验，并将新数据包含在修订后的论文中。

3. We appreciate your suggestion to expand the literature review to include more recent studies. In response, we have conducted a thorough review of the most relevant and up-to-date literature in the field and have included the key findings in the revised manuscript.对于您建议加强文献综述部分以包括更多最新研究的建议，我们表示感谢。

SCI 审稿意见回复范文

论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：Dear Mr. XXX,Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.To submit a revision, go to /lfs/ and log in as an Author.You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@ Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.Answers to Reviewers’questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum”to make it more clear and smooth （注：多处语法错误）.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)建议修改稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.Replies to Reviewer #1:Xxxxx （略）Replies to Reviewer #2:Xxxxx （略）Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2). 论文题目：Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer所投杂志：BMC Cancer.结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。