How to respond to reviewer and editor comments
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer
Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:
In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.
如何写好 Response to reviewer——发表SCI文章实战
如何写好Response to review——发表SCI文章实战发表文章有不少步骤，走走停停，有时候会因为得到审稿人的赏识和认可开心不已，当然也会因为意见尖锐，无法修改而苦恼不已，下面我总结了一些例子，看看如何回答 review report 里面的问题，所有内容均是自己文章投稿的真实过程，希望对大家有所帮助。
1. 关于 Cover letter整理了一份一般的格式，大体都是这样，呵呵Dear EditorDr. Yinon Rudich Nov. 25, 2009JGRManuscript Number: 2009JD013023,“Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize”Enclosed is the revised ve rsion of the paper entitled “Remote estimation of gross primary production in maize, coniferous forest and grassland using MODIS images”. We appreciated the thorough reviews provide by the journal and the positive response of both two reviewers that found the research of this manuscript is suitable for JGR. Below is our response to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications.RegardsDr. Chaoyang Wu**************2. 关于 Response 细节最根本的一个要求是事实就是，有什么说什么，不要企图遮遮掩掩，也不要回避，对意见一般先要礼节性的感谢或者同意，然后再做出修改。
如何写好-Response-to-reviewer——发表SCI文章实战
如何写好-Response-to-reviewer——发表SCI文章实战如何写好Response to review——发表SCI文章实战发表文章有不少步骤，走走停停，有时候会因为得到审稿人的赏识和认可开心不已，当然也会因为意见尖锐，无法修改而苦恼不已，下面我总结了一些例子，看看如何回答 review report 里面的问题，所有内容均是自己文章投稿的真实过程，希望对大家有所帮助。
1. 关于 Cover letter整理了一份一般的格式，大体都是这样，呵呵Dear EditorDr. Yinon Rudich Nov. 25, 2009JGRManuscript Number: 2009JD013023,“Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize”Enclosed is the revised version of the paper entitled “Remote estimation of gross primary production in maize, coniferous forest and grassland using MODIS images”. We appreciated the thorough reviews provide by the journal and the positive response of both two reviewers that found the research of this manuscript is suitable for JGR. Below is our response to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications.RegardsDr. Chaoyang Wuhefery@2. 关于 Response 细节最根本的一个要求是事实就是，有什么说什么，不要企图遮遮掩掩，也不要回避，对意见一般先要礼节性的感谢或者同意，然后再做出修改。
15_How to Communicate with Editors and Reviewers
Types of decision letters. • Accept o It is rare for a new submission to be accepted upon first submission. • Accept after minor revision o This type of letter is sent when a submission would be acceptable if a few required changes are made; generally no new data or experiments are requited. • Reconsider after major revision o Considerable modification will be required for further consideration, and more experiments or data would most likely be needed. Because new material could raise more issues upon re-review, there is no guarantee that the manuscript will ultimately be accepted. • Reject o No invitation to resubmit is offered.
For all journal communication: show respect for the editors • Avoid contacting the Editor-in-Chief directly, he/she is a leader in the field, extremely busy, and is in charge of the scientific content of the journal, not the day-to-day operations. The journal staff handles correspondence through the journal e-mail address. • The journal contact information page usually contains several people. For fastest service, choose the appropriate person to receive your message. For example, don’t contact the publisher with a scientific question and don’t ask a scientific editor when your proofs will be ready. They will not know the answers. • Use an appropriate subject line so your message can be prioritized. A subject line such as “Unable to complete submission” will grab the attention of the journal staff.
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Responsetoreviewer
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Responsetoreviewer在审稿意见回来之后，如何写一份标准的Response to reviewer！第1部分：对审稿人进行称呼第2部分：总述对文稿的修改情况（一般如果文稿进行润色了，最好在这里提及一下），以及夸夸审稿人（夸夸他的意见或者建议很好，对稿件的提升很大，千万不要和审稿人顶，不是干这个事情的时候），对稿件的期待。
第3部分：（标明）1#审稿人第4部分：1#审稿人的第一个问题（将审稿人的问题复制进来即可，排版好）第5部分：1#审稿人的第一个问题的回复意见（谨慎认真，不可敷衍了事）第6部分：2#或者其他审稿人第7部分：感谢语（可自由发挥）第8部分：通讯作者名称，日期，机构等信息01回复审稿意见时的小细节和礼仪1、正确的心态成就正确的回复在回复审稿人意见之前，先庆祝一下你的研究论文已经走到同行评审这一步了吧~还要对百忙之中抽出时间来审阅你论文的审稿人们怀一颗感恩的心！2、在回复审稿人之前，先修改稿件当你准备好以专业、客观的方式处理审稿人的意见时，先和你的共同作者们讨论一下评审意见的内容，共同商量决定要接受哪些修改，反对哪些修改。
修改完论文之后再开始给审稿人写回复。
3、回复细节首先，感谢审稿人花时间审阅你的稿件。
然后，表明你已经解决了他们提出的所有问题。
回应审稿人的意见并不意味着你全部按照审稿人建议的修改。
而是意味着：这些建议你认真考虑过后，有的做了修改，有的没有修改但是会解释原因。
列出所有审稿人的意见以及你对每条意见的回复。
使用不同的字体或文字颜色来突出你的回答，使文本易于查看。
4、不要直接回复yes 或no。
即使是被要求做一些小的修改，比如改正拼写错误的单词，你可以说“We 've corrected the typo.”。
如果是更严重的错误，你还可以加上“We apologize for our error.”5、尽可能让你的回复内容清晰明了。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)3
Dear Reviewers,Thank you for your thoughtful, helpful, and most kind review of manuscript 2006/036. Your comments and suggestions have been incorporated as appropriate into the revised draft. Specific revisions are noted below.Reviewer Comment Authors’ ResponseReviewer #1More detail on the method of interviewing participants should be added. Table 1 has been added that specifically notes methods of data collection, instruments used if applicable and any special information related to timing of interviews.Addition of a legend for Table 3 (nowTable 4) would be helpful.This has been added.Elaboration of the implications of the study for health care providers and patients. More implications have been added; however, this is early research, and the full extent of the implications is not completely known at this time.Addition of more specific directionsfor future research.These have been added in the conclusions section, Reviewer #2Make an explicit statement that the approach is somewhat atheoretical and data driven. This has been added under data analysis, as well as in the abstract.Potential problem of implying that clusters may enhance identification of AMI for the lay public and professionals related to fact that only persons with diagnosed AMI were studied. We agree that all presentations for AMI may not be represented in this study. We have noted that as a limitation. Assessing the symptoms of persons who have not been diagnosed, however, would be very challenging if not impossible. Hopefully, once we identify some of the clusters, they will lead us to presentations of persons who do not get diagnosed for a variety of different reasons.The results of this study must be considered provisional hypothesis and in need of subsequent support in independent and ideally prospective samples. We agree and plan to do this. We have noted that more study leading to validation of these findings is needed.Some of the data analysis could be presented more clearly. We hope that this revision presents the steps in data analysis more clearly.Methodological limitations:1. More about source studies. Table 2 has been added with more detailed information on the source studies. This includes year of publication (if applicable), inclusion criteria, etc. In addition, a statement was added in the text stating that all data were collected after 1990. Most studies used ECG and serum markers for subject identification, and this is indicated. Subjects with NSTEMI were included. All source studies that have been published are included inthe reference list.2. Questions on all symptoms in all studies. Not all symptoms were assessed in all studies. This is a limitation of secondary data analysis. The specific number of persons assessed for each symptom is noted in Table 3, and this is noted in the text.3. Reorder symptoms in Table 2 inorder of occurrence.This has been done.4. Weak justification for choosing5 rather than6 clusters. This has been addressed in the text. Thank you for pointing out the Loken reference. We agree that the BIC is a conservative approach to assessing model fit and have noted this in the manuscript. However, Loken also states that the best method for assessing fit remains controversial. Therefore, we used all of the statistics available and related them to form our conclusion. We hope that we have stated this point clearly.5. Footnoting of abbreviations inTable 3 (now Table 4) and moreexplanatory caption.This has been added, thank you for the suggestion.Add a table summarizing symptoms for each cluster. Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Table 6 has been added.Strengths and Limitations1. Statement related togeneralizability of findings.This statement has been removed.2. Limitation related to sample only consisting of cases of confirmed AMI. A statement has been added related to this limitation. Also the inclusion criteria (troponin/CK-MB) for the source studies have been added in Table 6.Study by Ryan and Zerwic in background. This study assessed perceptions of AMI symptoms, not actual AMI symptoms that were experienced. The point of the study was to examine whether persons were able to identify symptom clusters. We did not add more details of the results of this study because we do not think that they really compare to the present analysis.Editorial suggestions. These have been corrected. Thank you for pickingthem up.Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful comments. We hope that the revision addresses your concerns.。
冷静应对拒稿：如何回复审稿意见
冷静应对拒稿：如何回复审稿意见冷静应对拒稿：如何回复审稿意见已有 5979 次阅读2010-1-7 11:54|个⼈分类:未分类|系统分类:论⽂交流|关键词:拒稿，审稿意见，学术论⽂，英语论⽂，论⽂写作，理⽂编辑Dr. Daneil McGowan论⽂写作系列第⼗讲——Responding to peer reviewers: dealing with rejectionDr. Daneil McGowan 论⽂写作系列的中⽂版本终于与⼤家见⾯了，希望⼤家继续⽀持！译⽂见下⽅。
Your papers will sometimes be rejected. It is inevitable. The percentage of papers that is accepted and published without the need for any revisions is very small, and even the best scientists, writing up the best science, will face rejection from journals or the need to make revisions before their paper is considered acceptable for publication. Rather than thinking of rejection from your target journal and requests for major revisions as a negative experience, it is important to realize that this is an integral part of the publication process that exists to make your paper as robust and compl ete as possible before it joins the ‘collective knowledge’ as part of the literature.There are many different possible reasons for rejection from a journal, and most of these have been described in previous tips in this tips series. For example, if you submitted your manuscript to an inappropriate journal it is likely you will receive a rejection letter without the paper even being sent to review. By selecting an appropriate journal (see tip on journal selection) you will increase the chances that your manuscript will be sent out for review. Similarly, a poor cover letter might result in immediate rejection without review, so submitting your manuscript with a good cover letter is essential (see tip on cover letter development). Failure to follow the instructions set out in the target journal’s Guide for Authors is another possible reason for rejection and considered insulting to the journal editors, although it is likely that you will simply receive an invitation to resubmit in the correct format. Other reasons for rejection include flawed study design, poor written language, inappropriate or incompletely explained methodology or statistical tests, incorrect description or overstatement of results, lack of balance or detail in the introduction and/or discussion, or simply a lack of novelty (for example, if your study simply repeats something that has already been done before), significance or relevance. By critically analyzing your paper prior to submission, and considering all of the items that peer reviewers will look at, you will hopefully be able to identify any problems in advance. By following the advice in the tips in this tips series, youwill speed up the process from initial submission to publication and make the stages in between considerably less stressful. Therefore, it is worthwhile getting your paper into the best possible form before submitting it anywhere to minimize the likelihood of rejection.In considering peer review and how to address it, it is helpful to think about how a peer reviewer would have approached your paper. Different journals will ask different things of peer reviewers, but in general they will be checking for the following aspects of good science and scientific writing, and asked to comment whenever any of these criteria are not satisfactorily met in the submitted manuscript:SignificanceWhat is the importance of the findings to researchers in the fieldAre the findings of general to interest to researchers in related and broader fieldsNoveltyAre the claims in the paper sufficiently novel to warrant publicationDoes the study represent a conceptual advance over previously published workIntroductionDoes the introduction provide sufficient background information for readers not in the immediate field to understand the problem/hypotheses?Are the reasons for performing the study clearly definedAre sufficient and appropriate references cited to justify the work performedAre the study objectives clearly definedMethods/Technical rigorAre the methods used appropriate to the aims of the studyIs sufficient information provided for a capable researcher to reproduce the experiments describedAre any additional experiments required to validate the results of those that were performedAre there any additional experiments that would greatly enhance the quality of this paperAre appropriate references cited where previously established methods are usedResults/StatisticsAre the results clearly explained and presented in an appropriate formatDo the figures and tables show essential data or are there any that could easily be summarized in the textIs any of the data duplicated in the graphics and/or textAre the figures and tables easy to interpretAre there any additional graphics that would add clarity to the textHave appropriate statistical methods been used to test the significance of the resultsDiscussionAre all possible interpretations of the data considered or are there alternative hypotheses that are consistent with the available data?Are the findings properly described in the context of the published literatureAre appropriate references cited in meeting the above criterionAre the limitations of the study discussedConclusionAre the conclusions of the study supported by appropriate evidence or are the claims exaggeratedAre the significance/applicability/implications of the findings clearly discussedLiterature citedIs the literature cited balanced or are there important studies not cited, or other studies disproportionately citedJournal selectionIs the target journal appropriateLanguageIs the manuscript clearly written so as to be understandable by researchers not in the immediate fieldWhen you receive a letter of rejection and peer review reports from the journal editor it is important that you carefully study all of the comments (from the editor as well as the reviewers), address these in your manuscript as appropriate, and prepare a detailed response. It is usual to return a revised manuscript and response letter (it is also acceptable to separate the cover letter and responses into different files), and these normally need to be returned within a set period of time or the revised manuscript will be considered as a new submission. It is essential that you respond to all of the points made by the editor and/or reviewers, even if you disagree with them. If you do disagree with a point that has been made, you should provide a polite and scientifically solid rebuttal. This might take the form of a reference to a particular paper that supports your statement (such a paper might need to be added to the reference list of your manuscript if it isn’t already cited), an explanation of why an experiment was performed in a particular way, or an explanation of why you didn’t perform additional experiments recommended by the reviewer. Whatever you do, do not ignore or overlook comments, because this will only lead to delays. Your paper will not be published until all comments are appropriately addressed.The best format for a response letter is to paste in the comments made by the editor and reviewers and write your response beneath each comment. Use different font styles (for example, normal and italics) to differentiate comments from responses. When referring to changes in the text provide the page and line numbers so that these changes can quickly be identified.Copy the new or modified text into the letter so it is immediately clear how your changes address the comment. It is also usual to distinguish major changes in the text in some way, for example, with yellow highlight and/or underline and strikethrough fonts, to make them easy to identify. Finally, if additional analyses or experiments are required to satisfy the editor or reviewers, you should perform them and add the data to your manuscript; these serve to make the final paper stronger and will increase the chances of eventual publication.ExampleChecklist1.Don’t take rejection personally; the object is to make your paperstronger and more reliable2.Address all points raised by the editor and/or reviewers by revisingthe manuscript and showing the changes in your letter3.Perform any additional experiments or analyses requested unless youfeel that they would not add to the strength of your paper (in which case you should provide a rebuttal)4.Provide a polite and scientifically solid rebuttal to any pointsor comments you disagree with5.Differentiate comments and responses in the letter file by usingdifferent font styles6.Identify major revisions in the text, made in response to peerreview comments, with highlight, underline and strikethrough fonts7.Return the revised manuscript and response letter within therequested time period to avoid your paper being treated as a new submission。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
如何回复编辑和审稿人
如何回复编辑和审稿人 Company Document number：WTUT-WT88Y-W8BBGB-BWYTT-19998专题半月谈 - 如何回复编辑和审稿人作者：QIN 提交日期：2010-12-09 06:25:55 PM | 访问量：713专题半月谈 - 如何回复编辑和审稿人应战友要求，在版主的支持下，本人在此设立一个半月谈专题-如何回复编辑和审稿人实例分析。
需说明以下几点：1.为了突出问题的典型性，有些“实例“已经过修饰，故已不是作者原稿（或原意）。
2.修改和注解谨代表本人观点。
对于同一问题可能有不同或更好的修改方法或回答方式。
欢迎讨论。
3.同时亦欢迎各高级战友按以下格式增加实例（请注意版权问题）。
希望战友回帖时紧紧围绕主题，不要讨（争）论与主题无关的话题。
论文题目：所投杂志：投稿结果：编辑/审稿人问题：作者原答：建议改答：注解请写在文中相应的地方或单独列出。
15 January 2009 （第一讲）给编辑的回复信论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effect s 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 refere e. We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before wecan accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration m ust 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 incorpo rate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A com plete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered i nadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the r esubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separ ate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this t ime, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submis sion will be considered a new manuscript.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 Engli sh>>>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 antiv iral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiv iral 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 chang es in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruse s. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antivi ral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a m etabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivat ion. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and theseresults suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, pla sma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract a nd text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st pa ragraph>>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the pl ant, 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 agains t virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and an imals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloi d)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not incl ude the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the ref erence section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the g uideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu e t al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex ques tion of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future researc h aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend th e wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the resul t of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might b e satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen wh at you are trying to describe.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 experiment s 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 b ody 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 S CIENCE. 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 Engli shAnswer:I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against viru s B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it m ore 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 infor mative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, pla sma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract a nd 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 obta ined 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 errors Answer: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 refere nce section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guid eline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et a l., 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 word ing of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of t ables 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 sati sfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showi ng CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what yo u are trying to describe.Answer:Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardi ac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those m isspelling 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 he lped 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, pl ease 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 w ere sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. M ortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of I L-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggest ions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the c omments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significant ly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the ame ndments 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 edi ting company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, a nd 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 a nd 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 Engli shAnswer:I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine ag ainst Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokine tics 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 mo re smoothly.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, pla sma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract a nd text.Answer:I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriat ely 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 th e 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 refere nce section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guid eline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et a l., 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 word ing of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of t ables 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 sati fied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showin g 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 card iac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2).很好的经验，谢谢分享！31 January 2009 （第二讲）给审稿人的回复信论文题目：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。
Resolution of comments (response to reviewer)(response to editor)
3. In P1 C2 L60, “---- - different methods”. I guess, “Six” is missing.
The basic method for calculating phase-angle versus time is not new. It was used already before it was published in [7] and discussed in several IEEE working group during the 90’s, but probably not published. Also in [14] the method for calculating phase angle versus time is discussed and the method has been applied there to several measured dips.
Yes, it should be“six different methods”. It has been revised in the new revision.
4.How the propose methods (M4-M6) would be applicable for type B and E. If single phase to ground fault occurs in phase ‘a’ then faulted phase voltage would be:
Responding to Reviewers’ Comments
Responding to Reviewers’Comments on Submitted ArticlesPeter Cummings,MD,MPH;Frederick P.Rivara,MD,MPHFew authors receive any training in how to respond to the comments of editors and re-viewers,although some advice on this topic has been published.1-3In this article,we present our suggestions.The letter from the editor generally comes in one of 4flavors.First,a manuscript may be accepted without any changes.If this happens to you,count yourself lucky;such an editorial response is rare.In our expe-rience,this has happened only once for each of us.Second,the manuscript may be accepted with suggestions for minor re-visions.Again,count your blessings,quickly make the suggested changes (if you can),and return the revised manuscript;hopefully the paper will be accepted.Dif-ficulties typically arise with the next 2cat-egories of response:outright rejection and provisional rejection with the opportu-nity to make major revisions.DEALING WITH REJECTION Getting a letter of outright rejection is pain-ful.We have been there many times.Suc-cessful researchers have to develop a thick hide regarding rejection;do not take it per-sonally.Rejection may not even reflect badly on your manuscript.It just means that for stated or unstated reasons,the edi-tors decided that your paper was not what they wanted.Editors strive to publish ar-ticles that make important new contribu-tions.In some instances,you may be the victim of bad timing;the journal might have just published or accepted a study very similar to yours.You should read any suggestions that you receive.If they can be used to im-prove your manuscript,by all means,makethose changes.If you still feel that your work deserves publication,send it to an-other journal.Do this quickly;delay wastes time,and some papers will eventually grow stale as the data become less relevant.An editor reviewing a manuscript in 2002may be less enthusiastic if all of the data were collected prior to 1996.You presumably did the work in the first place because you thought that it had value.Getting pub-lished requires fortitude about pushing your work.One of us wrote a paper that was rejected by 8journals but was finally published in a ninth.Should you appeal the editor’s deci-sion?We know of colleagues who have done this and prevailed.We have not done this ourselves,however,and suspect that urging the editors of most journals to re-consider is a low-yield strategy.RESPONDING WHEN MAJOR REVISIONS ARE REQUESTED The most common route to final publica-tion is to get a letter from the editor that rejects (or provisionally accepts)the cur-rent version of your paper but offers reconsideration after major revision and a response to reviewer comments.A let-ter like this gets your foot in the door.Now you need to plan a strategy for revising your paper and gaining full acceptance.We suggest that you carefully read all of the comments from reviewers and the editor.Some of these may be critical,and others may even seem ignorant or wrong.Allow yourself a couple of days to grind your teeth and grumble.After you shed any initial irritation,try a second,From the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (Drs Cummings and Rivara),the Department of Epidemiology,School of Public Health and Community Medicine (Drs Cummings and Rivara),and the Department of Pediatrics,School of Medicine (Dr Rivara),University of Washington,Seattle.more dispassionate reading.Then set about crafting a response that is polite,thoughtful,clear,and detailed.It is a good idea to respond promptly.If you let many months go by,the editor will forget what was in your origi-nal manuscript,and you may give the impression that you are not interested in your own work.Be polite.You may be tempted to say that the re-viewer was an ignoramus,but this is not likely to get your paper accepted or to create the impression that you are a thoughtful scientist.Avoid a defensive or confronta-tional tone;you are not in a political debate.The goal is to glean helpful information from the comments,adopt any useful suggestions to improve the paper,and calmly explain your point of view when you disagree.There is no limit on the length of your response.If it takes you10pages to cover each point and explain all of the changes,the editors are willing to read a letter that long.Go through the reviewers’comments in an or-derly,outlined manner.In response to each comment, cut and paste into the letter any substantive changes made to the manuscript.Although this letter of response may be long,you actually ease the editors’job by putting ev-erything they need into one orderly document.Imagine that you have comments from both the edi-tor and reviewers A and B.In your manuscript you wrote,“Study subjects ranged in age from0to10years;27% were0to2years,and41%were2to6years.”Reviewer A wrote,“The description of the age distribution of study subjects was unclear.Were2-year-olds in the first group or the second group?And the2groups add up to only 68%.”Obviously,you meant that68%of the subjects were in the2youngest age categories and that32%were in the oldest group.However,the reviewer was correct in noting the vagueness of your age boundaries.You might respond with something like this:Reviewer A:4.The reviewer was concerned about the lack of clarity in our description of the age distribution of study subjects in the first paragraph of the“Results”section.The reviewer is correct,and we appreciate the chance to make ourselves clearer.We have revised the paper as follows:“Twenty-seven percent of study subjects were younger than2 years,41%were2to5years,and32%were6to10years.”By numbering your responses,first giving the re-viewer’s comment and then giving your answer,you make it easy for the editors and reviewers to follow the details of your response.By restating what you believe was the concern of the reviewer,you force yourself to think care-fully about what the reviewer wrote.This can some-times be illuminating,both for yourself and for the edi-tors.By giving the actual manuscript changes in the response letter,the editor can follow what you have done without searching for the changes in the revised manu-script.Notice that the previous response is polite and ex-presses gratitude.Reviewers are not paid,and they have other things to do in addition to reviewing manuscripts. If they offer you ways to improve your paper,thank them. Even though the hypothetical manuscript’s original word-ing is nearly as clear as the revision,the response con-veys the sense that you are happy to adopt reasonable suggestions.Some journals ask that you highlight changes on one copy of the returned manuscript.This can be done us-ing your word-processing software or by highlighting the changes with a marker.This procedure often creates a long manuscript that is hard to read,and fails to clearly juxtapose the reviewers’comments with your changes. Detailing the responses in a cover letter makes the whole process easier.Change and modify where it makes sense.You are not required to make every suggested change,but you do need to address all of the comments.If you reject a suggestion,the editor will want a good reason.Respond-ing at length to the reviewer and editor about their con-cerns without making changes in the manuscript may be appropriate for some comments.Rejecting a suggestion just because you prefer it your way is not good enough. For example,if a reviewer says that Figure2should be cut and the information placed in a table,you should do this even if you think that the use of a figure is clearer or more dramatic.Reviewers do not always agree with each other,and then you must make a choice.Decide which suggestion seems more valid,note your change in your response let-ter to that reviewer,and note in your response to the other reviewer that you received conflicting advice and made what you hope is the best choice.When you feel that your analytic method or choice of wording is superior to that suggested by the reviewer, lay out your argument.Remember,it is your name that will go on the article.If a letter to the editor criticizes something in your study,it will not be an acceptable de-fense to say that what you wrote or did was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.In the end,you will have to take responsibility for your work.Bear in mind that even a carefully crafted response letter and extensively revised manuscript may not be ac-cepted.Although the journal is giving you a second chance,the editors are under no obligation to publish the revised paper.If the ultimate decision is rejection, take heart that the journal was interested enough to re-view2versions of your work.The revised version will usually be an improvement,and you can quickly sub-mit elsewhere.CUTTING TEXTMost journals,including Archives of Pediatrics&Adoles-cent Medicine,state the typical length for manuscripts in their instructions to authors.It is not uncommon for the editor to note that whereas your manuscript is4000words, a length of3000words is more suitable from the jour-nal’s point of view.You may receive such advice with ei-ther an invitation to resubmit or an acceptance that asks for minor changes.You should follow this advice;the edi-tor is trying to balance priorities and believes that your pa-per can be shorter.If you want a final acceptance,you will have to trim.Cutting text with acceptance in sight does not need to be painful.Often you can find entire sen-tences that can go,or even a paragraph.Then start look-ing at each word within a sentence.We have had to do this many times with our own work.One of us had a paper accepted by a major jour-nal.Although the original draft was4000words,we knew that the journal would not accept this length,so we trimmed it to2500.To our dismay,the editors said that they would accept the paper if it were cut to1500words! At first this seemed impossible,but the final version was compressed to1650words and was actually a better paper.Sometimes there is a conflict between reviewer sug-gestions and the need to trim the manuscript.If the edi-tor tells you to cut1000words and a reviewer asks for a new analysis or discussion that might add500words,your best option may be to offer to do what the reviewer sug-gested but point out that you did not follow the sugges-tion in the interest of saving space.THE ROLE OF REVIEWSAs authors,we sometimes succumb to the feeling that reviewer comments are simply a barrier that we must breach to get our obviously brilliant work published. As editors,however,we appreciate that reviewers are donating their time to improve our manuscripts.A care-ful review is usually our last defense against a faulty analy-sis,incorrect reasoning,or muddled language.Review-ers read our papers with a fresh eye and offer us the chance to improve our work;we,not the reviewers,will get the credit for those improvements.Although responding to reviews may be burdensome,the chore is usually well worth the effort.Corresponding author:Peter Cummings,MD,MPH,Har-borview Injury Prevention and Research Center,325Ninth Ave,Box359960,Seattle,WA98104-2499(e-mail: peterc@).1.Huth EJ.Writing and Publishing in Medicine.3rd ed.Baltimore,Md:LippincottWilliams&Wilkins;1999.2.Browner WS.Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research.Baltimore,Md:Lip-pincott Williams&Wilkins;1999.3.Samet JM.Dear author:advice from a retiring editor.Am J Epidemiol.1999;150:433-436.2001Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Sourcebook,edited by Helene Henderson,Detroit,Mich,Omnigraphics Inc,2001.Cool Parents,Drug-Free Kids:A Family Survival Guide,by Robert H.Coombs,PhD,Boston,Mass,Allyn and Bacon,2002.Introduction to Podopediatrics,edited by Peter Thomson,BSc,DpodM,MChS and Russel G.Volpe,DPM,Edinburgh,Scot-land,Churchill Livingstone,2001.On Call Pediatrics,2nd ed,by David A.Lewis,MD,FAAP,FACC,and James J.Nocton,MD,FAAP,Philadelphia,Pa,WB Saunders Co,2001.Early Diagnosis and Interventional Therapy in Cerebral Palsy:An Interdisciplinary Age-Focused Approach,3rd ed,edited by Alfred L.Scherzer,New York,NY,Marcel Dekker Inc,2001.You and Leukemia:A Day at a Time,2nd ed,by Lynn S.Baker,MD,Philadelphia,Pa,WB Saunders Co,2002.Parenting Well When You’re Depressed:A Complete Resource for Maintaining a Healthy Family,by Joanne Nicholson,PhD, Alexis D.Henry,ScD,Jonathan C.Clayfield,MA,and Susan M.Phillips,Oakland,Calif,New Harbinger Publications,2001.。
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 ….。
【讲座】论文发表——如何回复编辑和审稿人
15 January 2009 （第一讲）给编辑的回复信论文题目：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 commen ts, 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 sub mission 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 o ur 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/Dawleyrat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study poten tial 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 bioinact ivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiment s with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the ab stract 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 produc ed a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological pro perties 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 alkaloi d)>>>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 r esearch 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 cell s 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 checke d for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@u.arizona.ed u 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 sacri ficed 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 S D 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” t o 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 ab stract 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 corre cted 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 ref erence 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 he art 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 express ion 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 ab stract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised man uscript.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 ref erence 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 hea rt 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).31 January 2009 （第二讲）给审稿人的回复信论文题目：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。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response-to-Reviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
Nature子刊实例—如何回复审稿人评审意见
Nature⼦刊实例—如何回复审稿⼈评审意见1回复审稿意见是作者发表论⽂过程中的⼀个重要环节。
由于作者与审稿⼈和编辑⽆法⾯对⾯交流，那么恰当地回复审稿意见是作者⽂章录⽤的重要因素。
在学习案例之前，我们先来回顾⼀下上期主要内容：回复审稿⼈意见主要原则◆总体要求：礼貌，诚恳◆逐条回复，不要遗漏◆如果意见合理，要仔细修改◆如果意见不合理，也要委婉的解释原因，⽤⽂献佐证◆逻辑清楚。
不要过度解读将问题变得复杂◆⼀定要注明你在哪⾥修改了稿件。
◆使⽤第三⼈称（reviewer）⽽不是第⼆⼈称本期案例分析2016年以后，Nature Communications期刊开始公布同⾏评审意见。
获取⽅法：获取⽅法在期刊官⽹选择⽬标⽂章，在⽂章末尾找到“Supplementery information”,点击“Peer Review File”即可。
⽹址：https:///ncomms/我们选择近期⼀篇⽂章来学习作者是如何回复审稿⼈意见的：01回复信开头清楚的展⽰标题“Response to reviewers”，接下来⽤⼀段话感谢审稿⼈和编辑，并且简述⾃⼰对⽂章的改动。
这篇⽂章的作者写的⽐较简洁。
对于⼤多数⼈来说，写的充实⼀点会更能赢得编辑的好感。
例如，在Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends这篇⽂章中的作者回复就很有参考价值：作者在标题中标明了⽂章编号，主要作者。
内容上，第⼀段感谢了编辑和审稿⼈，第⼆段描述了作者对⽂章的主要改动。
然后，逐条撰写对每位审稿⼈的主要回复内容：02负⾯意见回复“......综上所述，作者提供的信息声称......有点可疑，但不是⽆可争辩的。
如果把上⾯提到的⼀些问题弄清楚，⼿稿可能会更好。
这⼀条意见实际上在质疑作者的数据结果。
我们看看作者是如何回复的：回复（Response）我们同意审稿⼈的观点，即我们的研究中有⼏个发现是出乎意料的......(先同意专家看法)We agree with the reviewer that several of the findings in our study are unexpected, including......虽然⼤多数认为......但在⼀些研究中也发现了类似结果…并不削弱我们的结论......(引⽤前⼈⽂献，佐证⾃⼰的研究结果，语⽓委婉)Although most ......are shared......the fact that some......are seen only in......, Such ...... has been observed in other settings ...... and does not diminish the conclusion of x that......此外，参考审稿⼈关于......的观点。
如何用英文回复审稿人
Response to EditorDear editor,We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to the referees’comments and suggestions, as described in the authors’ response.CommentsDr. G. P. Gobbi and three anonymous referees have posted their comments in the interactive discussion of your manuscript. You s hould post Author’s Comments in responses to their comments before submitting your revised manuscript.Regarding to the AERONET data publication guidelines, you should convince the editor and referees that the PIs of each site involved are content with your response to Dr. Gobbi’s comment and accept to be credited by acknowledgement instead of co-authorship; otherwise, you should invite them to be the co-authors of your manuscript.Under the condition that the AERONET data guidelines issue has been settled, you can go further to make revisions of your manuscript. Please consider the referees’comments seriously, especially on AERONET data quality and uncertainties in AE. You can submit a revised manuscript only if you think these questions have been well addressed. In addition, please try your best to improve the presentation of your manuscript, with the current version of which all the referees and also this editor are not satisfied.Although the referees have recommended a submission of revised manuscript, this does not ensure that your manuscript will move to ACP for final publication. Your revised manuscript will certainly be sent to the referees for recommendation. ResponseWe are really very sorry about the improper use of data due to my carelessness. We do our best to gain their forgiveness. We have consulted with them, Prof. Arnico Panday (Pokhara PI) and Prof. Zhiyuan Cong (QOMS_CAS PI) have agreed to be the co-authors and improve the paper quality with us. Prof. Gian Paolo Gobbi agreed us to use the data, and recommended that we only added acknowledgement. Therefore we have added ‘We thank G. P. Gobbi (ISACCNR) and G. P. Verza (EVK2-CNR), for their effort in establishing and maintaining the EVK2-CNR AERONET site. We thank A. Panday and Gupta Giri for their effort in establishing and maintaining the Pokhara AERONET site.We thank Z. Y. Cong for his effort in establishing and maintaining QOMS_CAS AERONET site.’ in the acknowledgement of the new revised manuscript.For the AERONET data quality, the quality of level 1.5 data is actually poorer than level 2.0. However, level 2.0 data are not enough to provide continuous records to analyze the aerosol optical properties, especially for QOMS_CAS station. Therefore, level 1.5 data are used in the case of lacking level 2.0 data. Some unreliablemeasurements are eliminated before the statistical analysis. And we think the exclusion of unreliable data can improve the data quality to some extent. The median, rather than the mean is used to represent the seasonal variations. Some extreme events would not have great influence on the analysis of results. Data that within a day are less than five hours would be excluded in calculating diurnal variations, and this can also improve the data quality.Using the equation in the recommended reference of Referee#1, the uncertainty of AE has been estimated in the revised manuscript. We added this estimation of AE uncertainty in Section 2.2 in the revised manuscript. The sentences are ‘The equation ( )()can be used to estimate the uncertainty in AE where and are the uncertainties in AOD at two different wavelengths (Hamonou et al., 1999). If the uncertainties in AOD at different wavelength are set to the same value, the uncertainty in AE can be estimated by a simple calculation. When the uncertainty value of AOD is 0.01, the uncertainty in AE at 440-840nm is about 0.02. When the uncertainty value of AOD is 0.02, the uncertainty in AE at 440-840nm is about 0.04. Even if uncertainty in AOD is about 0.05, uncertainty in AE is about 0.10. Compared to the value of AE, uncertainty is low enough and has no significant effect on the results in this study.’. From the above simple calculation, we can know that the uncertainty of AE has no significant effect on the results. And the results are reliable in this study.We try to do our best, and English writing has already been further polished in the new revised manuscript by one co-author (Prof. A. Panday, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA) now.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Your Research Area is Small
It is very likely that either your reference or one of his friends will be your reviewer. Rejected for ―Poor English”
Meet 100 Active Researchers
A better citation would be:
“Smith’s model was effective in the X problem, however in the Y…” “The X benefit of Smith’s approach is not applicable to Y…”
There are about a hundred people in your research field who are likely to be referees of your papers. Present papers at (or at least attend) two professional meetings a year. When presenting papers or attending regional, national, or international meetings, try to get to know these people. This is your best opportunity for networking. When you go to conferences, smile and ―work the room.”
Compared to editor-selected reviewers, author-suggested reviewers may be more likely to recommend acceptance Nominating nonreviewers may increase the odds of publication success even more than that of nominating reviewers
Examples of Offensive Citation:
"The deficiency of Smith's approach is..." “The problems with Smith’s paper are…" “A serious weakness with Smith’s argument, however, is that ......” “The key problem with Smith’s explanation is that ......” “It seems that Smith’s understanding of the X framework is questionable.”
Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2004; 51:79–83
Suggesting Reviewers (continued)
Practice: Pay Attention to Reviewer Comments
―I don’t think you treated Smith fairly in your literature review. His insights deserve more respect.‖ ―You forgot to include Smith as a reference in you paper. His work is fundamental to understanding your research.‖
Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006; 4:13 Goldsmith LA, Blalock EN, Bobkova H, et al. Picking your peers. J Invest Dermatol ,2006; 126:1429– 1430
Scan Journal for Related Articles
Try to find some related articles in the journal to which you wish to submit your paper. Authors who published a paper on a related subject are likely to be referees. The editor still remembers them and has a connection to them. You need to cite their papers. Even if they are slightly related, try to use their references. Explain how your work is related.
Academic writers use the competitive, political, and supportive energy of other researchers
Supportive energy: Writing support groups, journal clubs, review groups. Competitive energy: Researchers compare themselves with other researchers and keep score. Political: Researchers are political. The negative side is that half of peer reviewed articles in top rated journals are never referenced by anyone, including the author. This shows that low impact papers are often published in the best journals because the articles are reviewed by friends of the author (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharter, SEJ 1991).
Cite Researchers Who Like You
Include references to authors who like your papers. They might become referees. Include references to people whom you met at conferences. This is to get a fair chance. Referees have to make an effort to be fair to unknown authors.
How to Respond to Reviewer and Editor Comments
Dr. Steve Wallace
Outline
Reviewers and editors decide the fate of our paper. Managing the relationship with them is vital to successful publication. What are reviewers really saying? How can we respond to them? What do we do when reviewers don't agree? How important is the editor in the decision-making process?
Practice: Incorporate English Editing into Your Supply Chain
Use professional editorial assistance Particularly if you are not a native English speaker Editors will not publish papers with grammatical errors Referees are often biased; they have an excuse to recommend rejection because of grammatical errors
Practice: Don’t Criticize References
I think that the author knows his subject better than I do. I usually use his references to find a suitable reviewer - Associate Editor, Journal of Retailing Avoid emphasizing the importance of your paper by putting down on other papers. Your references are pritive.
Suggesting Reviewers
Suggest Researchers whose hypotheses and ideas your work supports Researchers whose work yours builds on International collaborators in the same field Don’t suggest Researchers working closely on the same research question Researchers whose work is refuted by your study Researchers whose ideas run counter to your own or to the findings in your manuscript