1、看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充
2、大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你
3、是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两
4、部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”“argue”（如果有的话）“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面举例说明各部分的写法和格式。编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。审稿人1：意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。意见2：算法表述不明确。意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。审稿人2：图2太小。第3页有个错别字。很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿人意见1之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：List of Actio
5、nsLOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm *.LOA4: Explanations of the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.LOA5
6、: Figure 2 has been enlarged.LOA6: All typos have been removed.=分页=Responses to Editor-We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.Responses to ReviewersTo Reviewer 1:Thank you for pointing this out. A and Bs research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus o
7、f our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and Bs work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.“blablablabla（此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区别之处）”We have added the following discu
8、ssion to further explain algorithm *, see LOA3.“blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.“blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”To Reviewer 2:We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.We have removed all typos, see LOA5.总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权当是抛砖
9、引玉，希望和大家多多交流。来源：pitlord999小木虫!如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（1）1.所有问题必须逐条回答。2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验：1，最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；2，绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想该投另外高档杂志-因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的 “story” 了。|以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，
10、基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被某某科学进展拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。自我感觉总结（不一定对）：1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；:2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息；3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而
11、过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。欢迎大家批评指正。！我常用的回复格式，呵呵。Dear reviewer:I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions
12、 were answered below.1）&2）.引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。只要自己是正确的就要坚持。在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！我得回复格式是这样的：￥Dear Professor xx:Thank you very much for your letter
13、 dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript. in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was
14、also summarized and enclosed. A revised manuscript. with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。结果修改一次就接收了：）我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了、Dear Edit
15、or:Thank you for your kind letter of “.” on November *, 2005. We revised the manuscript. in accordance with the reviewers comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript. to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical below is our description on revision according to the reviewers com
16、ments. Part A （Reviewer 1）. The reviewers comment: .The authors Answer: .2. The reviewers comment:.Part B（Reviewer 2）1. The reviewers comment:#Many grammatical or typographical errors have been the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.Thank you and all the reviewers for the
17、kind advice.Sincerely yours,*精华如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（2）一个回复的例子（已接收）Major comments:1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population . enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a
18、 more clinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 （ref. 11）. CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest.2. In fig1Cplease specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs
19、to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol.3. The ELISA results are represented as fold increase compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be co
20、mpared to those of the zymography.4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic , the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.5. The auth
21、ors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.
22、Minor comments:1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion, which need correction.a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which is described as percent of migration. . pg 7:Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to % Instead should read M
23、igration of CB CD34 was reduced by %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 the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control （HT1080）.Answer to referee 1 comment:1. Mobilized peripheral blo
24、od is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldnt obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migratio
25、n ability, so we couldnt complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenechs study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Thei
26、r conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig1Cwas Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the
27、medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by dete
28、cting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells （MNC）/ml （since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%）, it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells （MNC）/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC./ this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 an
