該如何回復SCI審稿人？
如何回復SCI投稿審稿人意見（1）
1.所有問題必須逐條回答。
2.盡量滿足意見中需要補充的實驗。
3.滿足不了的也不要回避，說明不能做的合理理由。
4.審稿人推薦的文獻一定要引用，并討論透徹。
以下是本人對審稿人意見的回復一例，僅供參考。
續(xù)兩點經(jīng)驗：
1，最重要的是逐條回答，即使你答不了，也要老實交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽誤事；
2，絕大部分實驗是不要真追加的，除非你受到啟發(fā)，而想該投另外高檔雜志----因為你既然已經(jīng)寫成文章，從邏輯上肯定是一個完整的“story” 了。
以上指國際雜志修稿。國內(nèi)雜志太多，以至于稿源吃緊，基本沒有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。
我的文章水平都不高，主要是沒有明顯的創(chuàng)新性，也很苦惱。但是除了開始幾篇投在國內(nèi)雜志外，其他都在國際雜志（也都是SCI）發(fā)表。以我了解的情況，我單位其他同志給國內(nèi)雜志投稿，退稿的極少，只有一次被《某某科學進展》拒絕。究其原因，除了我上面說的，另外可能是我單位寫稿子還是比較嚴肅，導師把關(guān)也比較嚴的緣故。
自我感覺總結(jié)（不一定對）：
1）國內(nèi)雜志審稿極慢（少數(shù)除外），但現(xiàn)在也有加快趨勢；
2）國內(nèi)雜志編輯人員認真負責的人不多，稿子寄去后，少則幾個月，多則一年多沒有任何消息；
3）國內(nèi)雜志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也給你發(fā)；
4）國外雜志要求補充實驗的，我均以解釋而過關(guān)，原因見少帖）。還因為：很少雜志編輯把你的修改稿再寄給當初審稿人的，除非審稿人特別請求。編輯不一定懂你的東西，他只是看到你認真修改，回答疑問了，也就接受了（當然高檔雜志可能不是這樣，我的經(jīng)驗只限定一般雜志（影響因子1-5）。
歡迎大家批評指正。
我常用的回復格式，呵呵。
Dearreviewer:
Iam very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with youradvice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions wereanswered below.
1）
2）
....
引用審稿人推薦的文獻的確是很重要的，要想辦法和自己的文章有機地結(jié)合起來。至于實驗大部分都可以不用補做，關(guān)鍵是你要讓審稿人明白你的文章的重點是什么，這個實驗對你要強調(diào)的重點內(nèi)容不是很必要，或者你現(xiàn)在所用的方法已經(jīng)可以達到目的就行了。最后要注意，審稿人也會犯錯誤，不僅僅是筆誤也有專業(yè)知識上的錯誤，因為編輯找的審稿人未必是你這個領(lǐng)域的專家。只要自己是正確的就要堅持。在回復中委婉地表達一下你的意見，不過要注意商討語氣哦！
我得回復格式是這樣的：
DearProfessor xx:
Thankyou very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports.Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on theoriginal manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript. in the formats ofboth PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every questionfrom the referees was also summarized and enclosed. A revised manuscript. withthe correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental materialand for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, pleasecontact us without hesitate.
然后再附上Q/A，基本上囑條回答，寫的越多越好（老師語）。結(jié)果修改一次就接收了：）
我的回復，請老外幫忙修改了
DearEditor:
Thankyou for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised themanuscript. in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefullyproof-read the manuscript. to minimize typographical, grammatical, andbibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according tothe reviewers’ comments. Part A (Reviewer 1). The reviewer’s comment: ......
Theauthors’ Answer: .....
2.The reviewer’s comment: ......
Theauthors’ Answer: .....
...
...
PartB(Reviewer 2)
1.The reviewer’s comment: ......
Theauthors’ Answer: .....
2.The reviewer’s comment: ......
Theauthors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Manygrammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pagesindicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
***
如何回復SCI投稿審稿人意見(2)
一個回復的例子(已接收)
Major comments:
1.The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, andtran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population i.e.enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a moreclinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secreteboth MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cells from steady stateperipheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest.
2.In fig1 Cplease specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. Thisneeds to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of theprotocol.
3.The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" compared tocontrol. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used and results shouldbe presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results becompared to those of the zymography.
4.When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly betweenspontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the highspontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared tomobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.
5.The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine theoptimum concentration for inhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and antiMMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine thetoxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.
Minor comments:
1.There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results anddiscussion, which need correction.
a.Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which isdescribed as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migration of CB CD34 wasreduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 wasreduced by 73.3%?"
b.The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods.
2.It would be preferable to combine figure1Aand B, in order to confirm thereliability of fig. 1B by a positive control (HT1080).
Answer to referee 1 comment:
1.Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it isnecessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CBCD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtainenough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PBCD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al foundthat mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9.
Furthermore,Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPCmobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In ourpresent study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolatedCD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.
2.MMP-9 negative cell used in fig1Cwas Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis,MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To excludethat the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, wescreened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cellswith MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion.Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclearcells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it couldexclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclearcells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the mediumconditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination byMNC.
3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by usingcommercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml).Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results areexpressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result hasbeen added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in bothCB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However,MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium thanin BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml).Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen inthe BM CD34+.
4.In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cellsmigration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 inspontaneous migration of CBCD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation ofhematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cellsto the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules,chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groupsof Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+cells from BM and peripheral blood.
5.CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is notenough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitoryconcentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations usedby others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined theinhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in thatconcentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.
Minor comments:
1.Thespelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.
2.Sincethe results in figure1Aand B were obtained from two separated and parallelexperiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.
這是我的一篇修稿回復，雜志是JBMR-A,影響因子3.652,已發(fā)表，供參考！
Replyto the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172
Comment:
Reference#10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript.Should these be in order used in manuscript?
Reply:
Themissing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment(continued):
What is the sample size for all tests performed?
Reply:
Thesample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with athickness of about0.1mmand a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been addedinto the revised manuscript.
Comment(continued):
Figure7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince thisreviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clearevidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiberand small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.
Reply:
Necessarychange in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript. as well as inthe referred figure accordingly.
Comment(continued):
Table3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a selectfew.Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.
Reply:
Done accordingly.
Comment(continued):
Page11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is thestatistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significantdifference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be consideredequivalent.
Reply:
Althoughnot too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membraneexhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane”was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis.Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to themanuscript. to address the statistical analysis for the data.
Comment(continued):
Page12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on asample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11.Why wasn't release
performedand compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?
Reply:
Threerepeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resultingdata were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had asquare area of 3?3cm2 with a slightly different thickness.Standarddeviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manuscript.aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibersthrough a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended toshow that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specificapplication in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were justchosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform.release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with differentconditions (i.e. the core concentrations)
Comment(continued):
Table3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).
Reply:
Corrected accordingly.
Comment(continued):
Figure11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sampleof release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?
Reply:
Unfortunately,we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the compositenanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during theelectrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hencethe % release was not applicable. Please refer to the previous reply related toPage 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.We acknowledge the reviewer’scomments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
SCI生物醫(yī)學英文論文發(fā)表成功經(jīng)驗發(fā)表成功經(jīng)驗
SCI生物醫(yī)學英文論文發(fā)表成功經(jīng)驗共享系列一---（Clinical Chemistry）
將自己近10年的科研工作中有關(guān)論文整理總結(jié)發(fā)表方面的一些信息貢獻出來，與大家共享！如有時間，我擬將一些已經(jīng)發(fā)表的文章，按照撰寫與發(fā)表的實際經(jīng)歷與過程，即通過案例分析每一個雜志的特色，審稿偏好，review意見及答復要點等逐一分析。可能包含的雜志系列有：naturemethods，clinical chemistry，analyticalchemistry，J. Clin. Immuno，Biomed. Microdev，F(xiàn)ront.Biosci，Mol. Cell. Biochem，J.Expert，Rev. Proteomics，Jbiochemistry等。
本章先講解美國ClinicalChemistry雜志，一個臨床化學界的王牌雜志，近年其影響因子逐年攀升，現(xiàn)為7.7分。Clinical Chemistry由美國AACC每月出版，接受的文章包括與人體疾病相關(guān)的實驗室研究，分析與分子診斷，儀器，資料處理，數(shù)據(jù)分析，臨床研究等投稿。ISSN：0009-9147網(wǎng)絡(luò)版ISSN：1530-8561
【URL】http://intl.clinchem.org/
【鏡像URL】http://www.clinchem.org/
【出版者】AmericanAssociation for Clinical Chemistry (AACC)
【收費情況】免費,全文
【內(nèi)容簡介】
ClinicalChemistry is an international journal of laboratory medicine and moleculardiagnostics.Clinical Chemistry -- This highly respected and often-citedscientific journal is published monthly and contains peer-reviewed methodology,research papers and other articles relevant to clinical chemistry and relatedlaboratory sciences. Its circulation is more than 15,000.David E. Bruns, MD,Editor, (Charlottesville Office)
dbruns@clinchem.aacc.org
SandraWeaver, Senior Editorial Assistant
sweaver@clinchem.aacc.org
DonnaBrandl, Editorial Assistant
dbrandl@clinchem.aacc.org
ShaneP. Cyr, Editorial Assistant
scyr@clinchem.aacc.org
MacFancher, Publisher, (WashingtonOffice)
mfancher@aacc.org
MiriamGonzalez, Publications Coordinator
mgonzalez@aacc.org
【目錄、摘要或全文上網(wǎng)等情況】
FreeTOC, 1965 -
Free Abstract, 1975 -
FreeFulltext, 1997 -1999
Fulltext,1997 -
【雜志被索引的情況】
Indexedin Chemical Abstracts.
【備注】
Forfaster access to Clinical Chemistry Online from these countries use this URL:
http://intl.clinchem.orgAustralia, Brazil,China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,Mexico,Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, Taiwan, The Netherlands, UK該雜志是由美國臨床化學協(xié)會（AmericanAssociation for Clinical Chemistry，AACC）主辦的，于1948年成立，總部位于華盛頓，擁有1萬余會員。先在網(wǎng)站注冊，登記，按照提示一步步提供文章名稱，摘要，作者姓名，所屬領(lǐng)域，關(guān)鍵詞，主文，圖表等等。轉(zhuǎn)換為PDF后就可以提交，然后給你一個查詢號，接著就是等待了。。。
等了20多天，查閱狀態(tài)看到了第一次回信：
HomeAuthor Area Reviewer Area Personal Info. ClinChem Home Sign Out Submit NewManuscript. Information for Authors Queue Summary Feedback Help FAQ
DecisionLetter
[Returnto Queue]
To:作者姓名（電子郵件）
From:clinchemed@clinchem.aacc.org
Subject:Clinical Chemistry -- Manuscript. Decision
Cc:
RE:Clinical Chemistry MS ID# CLINCHEM/2002/036332
TITLE:
Dear Dr. xxx:
Yourmanuscript. has been examined by two expert reviewers. Please visit http://submit.clinchem.org to view their comments. For thereasons detailed in these comments, we cannot accept this manuscript. forpublication in Clinical Chemistry in this form. Also, your Reference 28 is notformatted properly. Our Information for Authors will offer assistance withjournal style; it can be found athttp://www.aacc.org/ccj/infoauth.stmWe would consider a revised version thattakes these criticisms into account. If you should resubmit the paper I wouldalso ask that you have several English speaking colleagues proof the paper forgrammar and composition. Additionally, be sure to provide a detailedpoint-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers. Failure to do so willdelay consideration of the revised manuscript.Prior to publication we requirecopyright releases signed by all authors. Our Authors Assurances and Assignmentof Copyright form. can be downloaded from http://www.aacc.org/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must signboth sections of the form. (a signature on the lower section means that allconflicts of interest have been disclosed even if there are none). Send thecompleted form. to us by FAX (434-979-7599).
Sincerely,
Dr.xxx nesley
Associate Editor
P.S.You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit aRevision" queue at http://submit.clinchem.org. Please do not begin the submission ofyour revised manuscript. until you are ready to submit the entire manuscript. Achecklist regarding requirements for submission can be found athttp://www.aacc.org/ccj/manuscript_check02.pdf. Figures must be uploaded as ImageFiles in .tif or .eps files at 600 DPI. Alternatively, you may use PowerPointsoftware for figures but fonts must be embedded and only one image per slide,one slide per file. When uploading the revised version, please be sure toinclude in the "Response to Reviews" field a point-by-point list ofall changes made, or your rebuttal, in response to each of the reviewers?
suggestions.
P.P.S.Please note that if your manuscript. has color figures, the authors areexpected to bear the cost of printing them, except in the case of invitedpapers. The charges for these figures are $1500 for the first color figure orpart of a figure, and $500 for each additional color figure or part of afigure. Authors will be billed for color publication costs unless they requestthat their figures be printed in black and white.
該雜志一般為2個審稿人，審稿過程也較嚴格，都是本領(lǐng)域的大牛。后來我還有幸在一次會議上認識到一個當年的審稿人，但不知道是1還是2，呵呵！一般總是先鼓勵一段話，不寫了。。。
下面問題就來了，共12個，有些很好回答，一句話就可以解釋清楚，有些就比較麻煩。還是舉例說明把
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1）實驗的有效性和深度（at least for a few substances of major importance
detectionlimits, cut-off values and specificity should have been studied.Also the description of the assay principle is not quite clear）
沒辦法，只有一條路，補充相關(guān)實驗，然后再投。
2）語言問題（The English text would have to be substantially improved）
雖然這是一個美國雜志，但對語言的要求一點都不弱，投之前還是忽略了，沒辦法，慢慢修改。
3）核心的技術(shù)問題（A cut-off value is given for MOL but the dimension is missing. Inthe discussion various anecdotic reports are given for which no data arepresented under results.）重新驗證討論。本來認為很快就可以接受了，沒想到卻又等了一個半月（中間發(fā)過一次信件詢問）才收到回信。原來除了上次2個評委，這次又增加了一個獨立審稿人。。。
原文如下：
Yourrevised manuscript. has been examined by the original two reviewers, plus arecommended third reviewer with special expertise in this area. Please visit http://submit.clinchem.org to retrieve their comments. The threereviewers find merit in the work, but have numerous constructive suggestions（別害怕，其實就是幾個小問題）. Please consider these suggestions carefully and prepare animproved version that addresses these concerns. I have also noted that thereare several color figures included in the paper, which seem to be useful onlyin color. Please be aware that (should your paper be accepted for publication)authors are expected to pay the costs for publication of color figures. Thecharge for the first color figure is $1500; subsequent figures, or parts offigures, are $500 each. Of course, if you wish to submit alternate figures inblack and white (or grayscale), you may do so.
Sincerely,
Dr.xxx
Associate Editor
P.S.You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit aRevision" queue at http://submit.clinchem.org. A checklist of requirements forsubmission can be found at http://www.aacc.org/ccj/manuscript_check02.pdf. When uploading the revised version,please be sure to include in the "Response to Reviews" field apoint-by-point list of all changes made, or your rebuttal, in response to eachof the reviewer suggestions. Also, please submit copyright releases for allauthors. Our Authors' Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can bedownloaded from http://www.aacc.org/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must signboth sections of the form. Send the completed form. to us by FAX(434-979-7599).P.P.S. For figures, please submit .tif files that have a minimumresolution of 600 DPI; the width and height of the Pixels should be about 4200x 4200. Alternatively, you may use PowerPoint for figures, but each .ppt filemay contain only one slide and fonts must be embedded.
總之一句話，還是需要再次修改。
又等了接近1個月時間，幸虧不是學生趕畢業(yè)，最終被接收了。
Thank you for your revised manuscript. It is acceptable and will be processed forpublication. Please note that I edited the paper to remove all text related toFigure 6. The structures of the drugs are available to anyone who wants to lookthem up. Thus this figure will not be in the proofs that you receive.
如果proof快的話，這個雜志一般會安排在2-3個月后發(fā)表。
If page proofs are returned promptly, your paper is scheduled to appear in the Octissue.之前電子版會先在網(wǎng)上發(fā)布Papers in press are posted online 2-6 weeks before the issue date.Issues are scheduled to be mailed to subscribers and appear on the Internetbefore the first day of the issue month. The electronic version (http://www.clinchem.org)is published at Stanford University's HighWire Press, where your article willbe linked electronically to and from PubMed and directly to and from over 340other journals that are on-line at Stanford.當然還要轉(zhuǎn)移版權(quán)Priorto publication we require copyright releases signed by all authors. Our AuthorsAssurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from http://www.aacc.org/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must signboth sections of the form. (a signature on the lower section means that allconflicts of interest have been disclosed even if there are none).
Thankyou for this contribution.
Sincerely,
Dr.xx
Associate Editor
我們的回復
DearDr.×××,
Thankyou very much for giving me an opportunity to revise the abovemanuscript.
Accordingto the reviewers' comments, we have revised the manuscript to provided ourexplanation.
Furthermore,we revised the paper according to your suggestion.
1)The length of abstract is 194 words, and the word of the main text is2550.
2)The layout and format guidelines have been followed.
3)The changes to the paper have been highlighted underlined as well as includingdetailed responses to the reviewers comments.
Ihope you are satisfied with the revised version, however, if there is morequestion, we are willing to revise it again.
Thank you.
××××
come from×××