第一，端正態度，學會充分尊重審稿人的意見。既然不同人能提出來，就說明至少在他們看來，文章裡存在不小的缺陷，不合他們的觀點。回覆措辭上一定要給予足夠的尊重。

第二，補足功課，對稿件積極進行修改。分清審稿人所提是屬於大的問題還是小的問題，針對性去重新提煉，善用文獻分析法，充分挖掘，補足資料，避免出現語法和拼寫方面出錯的低階錯誤。

第三，要靈活掌握回覆的時間，可在時間上稍微壓一壓，避免回覆太快，給審稿人造成思考不周全，操之過急的壞印象。自己也可以有更多的時間去潤色和修改。

另，建議額外附上一封letter，簡要陳述自己做了哪些修改，濃縮文章的核心主題外，適當加上客套話，表達對審稿人工作的尊重。

誠懇的回覆。每個審稿人都有自己的理由和對文章的認識，他們希望提出來的意見能得到尊重。如果文章的觀點或內容確實沒有改的必要，或者不願意改，那就不理他們，另投其他期刊。如果還要投這個期刊，那最好逐一誠懇的回覆。

逐條回覆，認真對待，並在修改稿中將改過的地方以不同顏色標記，一般審稿人的話就是聖旨，編輯基本都會參考審稿人的意見。如有不同於審稿人的意見，且改變了文章內容，可誠懇解釋原因，再表示堅持己見。如審稿人針對個別字句，且對全文中心影響不大，可刪掉

　　如何回覆SCI投稿審稿人意見（1）

　　1.所有問題必須逐條回答。

　　2.儘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。

　　以下是本人對審稿人意見的回覆一例，僅供參考。

　　續兩點經驗：

　　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，以至於耽誤事；

　　2，絕大部分實驗是不要真追加的，除非你受到啟發，而想該投另外高檔雜誌----因為你既然已經寫成文章，從邏輯上肯定是一個完整的“story” 了。

　　以上指國際雜誌修稿。國內雜誌太多，以至於稿源吃緊，基本沒有退稿，所以你怎麼修都是接受。

　　我的文章水平都不高，主要是沒有明顯的創新性，也很苦惱。但是除了開始幾篇投在國內雜誌外，其他都在國際雜誌（也都是SCI）發表。以我瞭解的情況，我單位其他同志給國內雜誌投稿，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，導師把關也比較嚴的緣故。

　　自我感覺總結（不一定對）：

　　1）國內雜誌審稿極慢（少數除外），但現在也有加快趨勢；

　　2）國內雜誌編輯人員認真負責的人不多，稿子寄去後，少則幾個月，多則一年多沒有任何訊息；

　　3）國內雜誌要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最後也給你發；

　　4）國外雜誌要求補充實驗的，我均以解釋而過關，原因見少帖）。還因為：很少雜誌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（當然高檔雜誌可能不是這樣，我的經驗只限定一般雜誌（影響因子1-5）。

　　我常用的回覆格式，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合起來。至於實驗大部分都可以不用補做，關鍵是你要讓審稿人明白你的文章的重點是什麼，這個實驗對你要強調的重點內容不是很必要，或者你現在所用的方法已經可以達到目的就行了。最後要注意，審稿人也會犯錯誤，不僅僅是筆誤也有專業知識上的錯誤，因為編輯找的審稿人未必是你這個領域的專家。只要自己是正確的就要堅持。在回覆中委婉地表達一下你的意見，不過要注意商討語氣哦！

　　我得回覆格式是這樣的：

　　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.

　　然後再附上Q/A，基本上囑條回答，寫的越多越好（老師語）。結果修改一次就接收了：）

　　我的回覆，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,

　　***

　　如何回覆SCI投稿審稿人意見(2)

　　一個回覆的例子(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覆，雜誌是JBMR-A,影響因子3.652,已發表，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生物醫學英文論文發表成功經驗發表成功經驗

　　SCI生物醫學英文論文發表成功經驗共享系列一---（Clinical Chemistry）

　　將自己近10年的科研工作中有關論文整理總結髮表方面的一些資訊貢獻出來，與大家共享！如有時間，我擬將一些已經發表的文章，按照撰寫與發表的實際經歷與過程，即透過案例分析每一個雜誌的特色，審稿偏好，review意見及答覆要點等逐一分析。可能包含的雜誌系列有：naturemethods，clinical chemistry，analyticalchemistry，J. Clin. Immuno，Biomed. Microdev，Front.Biosci，Mol. Cell. Biochem，J.Expert，Rev. Proteomics，Jbiochemistry等。

　　本章先講解美國ClinicalChemistry雜誌，一個臨床化學界的王牌雜誌，近年其影響因子逐年攀升，現為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的實驗室研究，分析與分子診斷，儀器，資料處理，資料分析，臨床研究等投稿。ISSN：0009-9147網路版ISSN：1530-8561

　　【URL】http://intl.clinchem.org/

　　【映象URL】http://www.clinchem.org/

　　【出版者】AmericanAssociation for Clinical Chemistry (AACC)

　　【收費情況】免費,全文

　　【內容簡介】

　　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、摘要或全文上網等情況】

　　FreeTOC, 1965 -

　　Free Abstract, 1975 -

　　FreeFulltext, 1997 -1999

　　Fulltext,1997 -

　　【雜誌被索引的情況】

　　Indexedin Chemical Abstracts.

　　【備註】

　　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該雜誌是由美國臨床化學協會（AmericanAssociation for Clinical Chemistry，AACC）主辦的，於1948年成立，總部位於華盛頓，擁有1萬餘會員。先在網站註冊，登記，按照提示一步步提供文章名稱，摘要，作者姓名，所屬領域，關鍵詞，主文，圖表等等。轉換為PDF後就可以提交，然後給你一個查詢號，接著就是等待了。。。

　　等了20多天，查閱狀態看到了第一次回信：

　　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.

　　該雜誌一般為2個審稿人，審稿過程也較嚴格，都是本領域的大牛。後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，補充相關實驗，然後再投。

　　2）語言問題（The English text would have to be substantially improved）

　　雖然這是一個美國雜誌，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，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，這個雜誌一般會安排在2-3個月後發表。

　　If page proofs are returned promptly, your paper is scheduled to appear in the Octissue.之前電子版會先在網上釋出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.當然還要轉移版權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

　　我們的回覆

　　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×××

審稿人的意見可以分情況解答，如果SCI論文審稿意見太多，不如參考以下方法。

首先是回覆禮儀。不管意見正確與否，要有禮貌，如果自恃在這個領域研究多年而自大，很容易搞砸哦。如果遇到審稿人給的意見是錯誤的，不要直接斬釘截鐵說對方是錯的，「there seems to be a misunderstanding」，委婉的回覆會讓你加分哦~最後，要全面地回答審稿人地意見，不能因為審稿意見太多，而疏漏任何一個哦，弄不好這個就決定SCI論文生死了。

說一下審稿意見多具體應該要如何處理。首先要整理這些意見，如果兩個專家的意見略微相左，可以加以融合。

其次，對每個回覆進行逐個解答，剛說到回答要全面，就要對每個意見做出你的回覆。

然後，你還要突出重點。最好把重要的觀點放在最前面，讓專家一眼看到你的回覆，特別是會議投稿需要大量審閱，重點不明難免耗費審稿人耐心。

除了全面解答，還要做到精簡。全面解答不代表要冗長，能用一兩句說清的，絕不用一兩篇來回復。

你需要注意的是，回覆也要潤色。回覆不要太過生硬，跟你的論文一樣，也要進行適度“潤色”，流暢的表達更易被接受哦~

最後一步，要記得核對。除了審稿人提到的問題，再仔細讀一遍自己的論文，覺得不正確的地方可以提出適度修改。如果有需要補充的材料，可以放在upporting information裡，畢竟這可能是最後一次對文章進行修改的機會。

當我們遇到編輯來信自然是要在修改完稿件之後，再投稿的時候附上回覆信（即response letter）。那對於回覆信的寫作，具體該怎麼寫呢？我們需要遵循以下這些原則：

第一，迴應審稿人的批評，最重要的是要體現誠意，要讓編輯和審稿人覺得你認真對待他們的意見。

除非學術編輯十分喜歡你的論文，一心要接受其發表，否則國際高水平雜誌大多數都會以錙銖必較的態度認真對待審稿人的每一條批評，並要求作者作出必要修改。多數情況下，修改稿要與審稿人再見面，並作重新評審。寄希望於編輯和審稿人高高舉起而輕輕放下，是不切實際的，可能性不大。

美國微生物學會新開辦的跨學科雜誌 mBio 就申明，凡要求作較大修改的論文都乾脆不予接受，以免作者和審稿人疲於應付。但這樣的做法目前仍非主流，因此，向編輯和審稿人體現誠意，讓他們感覺到你已作出巨大努力提高論文的質量，仍是至關重要的。

第二，凡是審稿人建議應該做或可做可不做但不難做到的實驗，都要補做實驗，加入新資料。

第三，在回答審稿人的問題時，要做到有理有據，這樣才能說服審稿人。比如，一些審稿人認為你SCI論文裡的結果需要進一步的實驗來論證，而你沒有辦法補充實驗了，這個時候你可以採取兩種措施：一是把這個作為“Limitation”在討論部分提出來，說我們的文章確實有些不足之處，但是後續會補充實驗來驗證的；二是可以列舉一些已經發表的、類似的SCI文獻來說明別人也有這麼做的。

否則，下一輪評審可能就連修改的機會都沒有了。有些作者認為審稿人都已經說了不少好話，不會在乎個別細節，這樣的判斷往往也是錯誤的。修改稿不必加入新實驗新資料就過關的情況，在大多數有一定水平的雜誌是不會發生的。

當然影響因子3以下的個別雜誌可能有例外。以為國際雜誌也可以僅靠磨幾下嘴皮或輕描淡寫幾句就可以不做新的實驗而矇混過關，遲早是會碰壁的。

第三，要儘量避免攻擊審稿人、質疑其專業水平或對多條審稿意見提出抗辯。

情緒化或質疑審稿人歧視作者，往往於事無補。多數情況下作者的迴應及修改稿要跟原審稿人見面，言語上的失敬只會增加審稿人的敵意。

當然對於審稿人意見中明顯失當或其要求完全不可能達到之處，應該心平氣和地指出，並列舉實際資料或文獻支援。如果發現審稿人有疏忽之處，也應客氣地解釋，而不必意氣用事地抱怨。這就是前面講的擺事實講道理。選其中重要的一兩點提出抗辯，但對較次要的各點則儘量滿足，往往是比較策略的做法。糾纏於無傷大雅的枝節問題，對作者有害而無益。

最後，要注意不要亂訴苦或試圖博取同情。

過分強調自己實驗室條件的不足，甚至坦言發表不了論文就畢業不了，不僅不會加分，甚至只會減分。例如審稿人要求做定量PCR，有作者表示做不了，這樣很難得到編輯的同情。希望編輯降低要求幫急需論文的學生一把，大多數編輯都會嗤之以鼻，只能是作者的一廂情願。

恰當回覆審稿意見，是提高你論文發表成功率的一個重要環節。

在向期刊提交稿件之後，編輯一般會有兩個主要結果：（1）拒稿；（2）期刊顯示出興趣，但前提是你能正確對待和處理審稿人的評審結果（包括大修和小修）。應該如何處理這些評審意見，寫一封有力的回覆信呢？審稿專家總是正確的嗎？如果不是，如何有理（有禮）有據的反駁呢？本文在諮詢很多審稿專家的經驗後提出了一些建議。

如何寫回覆信

當我們向目標期刊提交論文之後，編輯發來郵件，說文章不錯，但在目前這個版本是不可接受的。這是好訊息還是壞訊息？這當然是個好訊息，因為編輯顯然對你的論文很感興趣，而且論文一般是很少直接接收而不進行任何修改的。現在，你已經閱讀了編輯和審稿人的評語。接下來需要做什麼？

在開始寫回覆信之前，你必須“沉浸其中”。你需要仔細閱讀所附的編輯信件，以瞭解他們在審稿人的評語中強調了什麼，以及是否提出了其他問題。接下來，仔細閱讀審稿意見，並對照你提交的文稿仔細核對審稿人提出的問題。如果你覺得提出的意見毫無價值，你的論文完全不需要修改，你很可能是錯的。

在寫你的回覆時，尤其注意回覆信的結構，一封邏輯清晰、層次分明的回覆信會節省編輯和審稿人很多的精力，增加作者的印象分。建議先擬一個大綱，這也能幫助你不會漏掉期刊提出的任何問題。這裡提供一個大綱模板：

（1）在回覆信的每一頁上加上一個標題：“Reply to the comments on manuscript [你遞交的稿件標題和id]” 和“作者名字”。

（2）簡單介紹你對審稿意見的回覆，並總結你所做的主要修改。同時，別忘了感謝編輯和審稿人的辛苦付出。

Comment 1.1：（對於第一位審稿人的第一個意見）後面是評語的複製貼上，或對提出的觀點的簡短總結。如果審稿人的評語沒有編號，建議自己將審稿意見分為若干個小節，並可以使用斜體突出顯示審稿人的評語。

Reply 1.1：（對Comment 1.1的回覆）。這就是所謂的點對點回複審稿人的意見。

建議在收到審稿意見的時候就準備好這份文件，以構建好回覆信的結構。這樣你會有充足的時間進行梳理，並決定如何按照審稿意見來修改論文及補充實驗。

以下是如何回覆審稿意見的一些基本規則。

2.仔細閱讀期刊上關於提交修訂本的要求。

3.要意識到審稿人花費時間義務幫你審稿，是試圖幫助你改進它。對審稿人和編輯要有禮貌，不要輕視他們的評論。即使他們似乎在說“愚蠢”的話，而你覺得“他們沒有理解你的論文”或實際上漏掉了什麼，這至少意味著你論文的關鍵讀者之一還沒有理解你所傳達的內容，所以你必須修改原稿，使你的核心論點和論據更加清晰詳實。同時你可以回答：“這一點在原稿上已經澄清過了（第x頁第a行），但也許我們還沒有充分闡明這一點。因此，我們現在在（第y頁第b行）上再次強調了這一點。”

4.你的回答要非常具體，並解決所有提出的問題。每個問題都用一句話來回復顯然是非常敷衍的，除非針對語言和拼寫問題，你可以回答“這已被修正，並在原文中保留了修改痕跡”。有些可以佐證你論點的資料或資料如果不太方便在文稿中呈現也可以放在補充材料中，並在回覆信中向審稿人陳述清楚。如果你不能解決審稿人提出的問題，請詳細解釋客觀原因，而不能直接說我做不到。如果你覺得某條評論超出了你的研究範圍，也耐心解釋一下，並可以說“您提出的觀點很有意思，但這並不在本文的研究範圍內，我們會在今後的研究中慎重考慮”。如果你不同意審稿人的觀點或者認為不需要進行額外的實驗或分析，也完全不需要妥協，但請一定給出合理的解釋。所有的回覆內容都需要有事實依據，如果你沒有做過修改，千萬不要聲稱已經按審稿人要求改了。

5.如果有審稿人要求你縮減文稿篇幅，那就按要求去做。並且可以用你縮減了多少百分比來表示。

6.要讓審稿人和編輯能輕鬆閱讀你的回覆信。在回答評語時，一定要註明你在哪裡修改了稿件：“This is now addressed in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript on page x, line y.”如果適當的話，請在你的答覆中引用相關的參考資料。

7.你的回覆信的物件應該是編輯而不是審稿人，提到審稿人時一定要用第3人稱，如，“We agree with the reviewer …”而不是“We agree with you”。

我們都知道，SCI論文的拒稿率很高，特別是對於高知名度的期刊。所以要注意，你在重新提交修改稿後仍然可能被拒絕。但是寫回覆信的過程，能充分利用你的合作者以及審稿人的專業知識，會增加你成功發表論文的機會。