sci论文怎样回复审稿意见

sci论文怎样回复审稿意见

1、仔细阅读审稿人意见，确保自己明白问题所在及为什么审稿人会提出这些问题。
当稿件被拒时，您可能会沮丧或者对所提问题持不同意见。但是，被拒和不同意见是科研分析和辩论的正常部分，所以不要认为他们是针对您个人的。请记住他们只是想帮您改进论文。
如果您不明白某个意见，应在您的答复中明确提出来，或者给编辑写信要求进一步解释。但是，在此之前，请与您的合作作者讨论一下，确保你们都清楚审稿人意见并确定后续如何处理这些意见。
2、准备回复文件。
考虑每条意见以及如何答复。写答复时，应做到清楚、简明扼要，并用证据说明您做出的改动或者您采用特定的方式处理意见的原因。
3、逐一答复每条意见和修改建议。
• 将每条意见复制、粘贴到一个新文件中（不要只提“审稿人1，意见1”，因为这需要期刊工作人员花时间相互参照）。请在每条意见后写答复。
• 提到您对哪些地方做出了修改。不要只提及页码，而是使用行号，或者引用某个特定部分的句子开头部分。
• 明确解释您对哪些建议持反对意见及理由（并且给出您的证据）。
• 务必做到积极、礼貌和简明扼要。
4、不要错过截止期限!
大多数期刊都有接收修回稿的具体期限。确保自己按时答复！计划好答复时间，以便您有足够的时间撰写答复，并对文章做出修改。如果您需要重新查询数据或者做出大范围修改，比如减少字数或者增加额外内容，您可能需要花费一定的时间。
5、不要向其他期刊提交原稿。
即使您的论文被完全拒绝，也不要将原稿直接发给另一家期刊，可能别的期刊也会给出类似意见（甚至可能使用同样的审稿人！），因此您应根据反馈意见修改论文，然后确定后续步骤。
如果审稿人意见不一致怎么办？
这种情况其实很普遍。例如，审稿人1可能说“表2多余—请删除”，而审稿人2可能会说“表2的第3列数据集还需进一步解释。”您该接受哪个意见？自己做出判断，并征求合作作者的意见，在答复中明确说明您为何选择删除数据而不是增加数据。再次强调，在提及您做出的修改时务必明确—引用具体行数/表号，您做出了哪些修改以及原因。
……如果我的论文还是被拒了怎么办呢？
在这种情况下，和您的合作作者讨论如何回应，决定是否向期刊编辑申诉……还是转而向其他期刊投稿。如上所述，在未充分考虑其他期刊的性质和范围之前，不要贸然将原稿投给它们。
以上内容来自查尔斯沃思论文小贴士，希望可以帮助您，谢谢

sci投稿被拒，如何回复编辑？

1、如何回复
首先，了解自己论文被拒的原因，是否认同被拒的理由。如果认可那么可以回复辛苦审稿人，拒稿信中若有修改建议和意见，还要感谢审稿人给出的指导。
如果不认同被拒的理由，要感谢审稿人付出时间和精力审稿后，委婉的说明自己的意见。回信给到杂志社后，杂志社也会看你的回信，如果杂志社觉得你的解释合理，可能会找审稿专家重新审稿，当然这种可能性是比较低的，多半还是以拒稿结束。
2、拒稿后怎么做
被拒稿大概率是因为你的研究没有达到期刊的要求，具体还是要看拒稿的要求，如果期刊鼓励修改后重投，一定要抓住机会，可以针对论文被拒的原因，对论文进行修改，直到达到该刊发表要求后再投稿，
但是很多顶级的期刊，是明确告诉作者，拒稿了以后就不要再投，比如PNAS。对他们来说，已经被拒的文章，再次投回，是在浪费他们的资源。
3、sci拒稿回复信
1)认同审稿结果，可以回复：
Thank you for providing these insights，We agree with you and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper
2)认同审稿结果，可以回复：
Thank you for providing these insights，You have raised an important point; however, we believe that [X] would be outside the scope of our paper because/We have clarified that… means… (p. #, lines #-#) throughout the paper
4、拒稿回复注意事项
不要直接否决或是反驳审稿人给出的拒稿原因，而是以讨论的方式表达自己的观点，最好是找到可以佐证自己说法的文献，这样更有说服力。
最后，为了降低sci论文被拒的可能性，建议大家提前了解sci论文常见的拒稿原因，并在投稿前做好全面检查。

写SCI回复信的方法分享

　　有SCI论文投稿经历的作者应该都有深有体会，要发表一篇SCI论文真的没那么简单。论文的方向、英文稿件的撰写、各种审稿意见.......下文我就为大家分享回复修稿信的方法?

　　回复信(response letter，rebuttal

letter)想必各位作者都不会陌生，这是大多数论文在见刊前作者都需要做的意见事情，为什么呢?因为大部分稿件在期刊发表前需要经历至少一次的修稿，由于各种原因初次投稿的论文没有达到期刊的要求或者审稿编辑的要求，都需要对论文进行修改，在修改完善以后作者需要将回复信和修改稿一并递交杂志社，曜文编译提醒各位作者回复信需要逐点回复专家的修改意见。同时也要注意回复意见的整体性，写好一封回复信很重要。

　　一、回复信的写法：1.回复信的开头要提供论文题目和投稿编号，并用少许篇幅感谢审稿人及修改意见。2.逐点回复专家的修改意见，如果打算把逐点回复分开来放，可以简短列出根据评审意见进行的主要修改有哪些，然后说明会将逐点回复另外附加;如果是将逐点回复放在信里，可以说回复在后。

　　二、编写回复信的注意事项

　　1.审稿意见的全面回复：如果作者再回复审稿意见时，会有遗漏或回避一些审稿意见的情况，建议作者还是全面回复审稿意见比较妥当，即使有不同意或不接受修改，也要说明原因。在每一点意见后面提供清楚详细的回复，一定要确认编辑和审稿人所有提出的点都回复了。

　　2.将审稿意见与回复内容区别开来：将评审意见编号，顺序回复，在论文中的修改处标示出来或是指出论文修改前后的个别行数，可以将审稿意见加粗，与回复内容做区别。

　　3. 审稿意见分类：如果意见很多，可以试着将它们进行分类，例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一组等等，如果将意见进行分组，记得在信里提及“I

have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several

categories in order to achieve an integrated approachin my responses”。

　　4.评审意见的点列式回复：如果评审员的意见是长长的段落，可以将意见分离成点各别回应，如果不确定某项意见的意思，可以先解释自己对该意见的理解，然后再进行回复。

　　5.与审稿意见的分歧处理：同行评审的老师通常是领域内的专家，如果作者认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落，有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚。这种情况下，可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明。可以这么写“I

am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript. I should have

explained that (……详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。

　　如果审稿人要求提供更多数据或是补做实验，而你认为没有必要，还是要说明为什么不做，避免像是经费不够或是没有时间这种私人理由，也不要表现出负面的态度，回复中要表现出对意见的重视和尊重。回答必须要清楚有逻辑并有证据支持。

　　6.新资料的添加：若添加任何新的数据或图片，要提及它们在论文的什么位置：如果在修改过程中加入了新的数据、表格、图片等资料，记得指出它们的所在位置，必要的话，夹带补充资料给审稿人和编辑，如此他们可以直接对照，不用一个一个搜寻。

　　7. 适当的总结：结尾像“Since all the corrections have been made, we hope the

manuscript will now be accepted without any further

changes”，这样的结尾可能会过于自负，如果要直接又不失礼，可以这么说：“We look forward to hearing from you

regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions

and comments that you may have”，这样的结尾正式有礼也表达了愿意在必要的情况下进行更多修改的意愿。

　　以上就是对写SCI回复信的方法整理和分享，在得到审稿编辑的修稿意见以后一定要非常重视，在自己理解编辑意图的同时也可以需求专业的帮助。选择专业的SCI论文润色公司进行论文的润色和修改就是一个不错的办法。

如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见

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，而想改投另外高档杂志----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，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:
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 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 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 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 Editor:
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 errors.
Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.
Part A (Reviewer 1)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Part B (Reviewer 2)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.
All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
***
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 i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a 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 fig 1C please specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs 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 compared to those of the zymography.
4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration. Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.
5. The authors 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.
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. i.e. pg 7:"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced 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 figure 1A and B, in order to confirm the reliability 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 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 couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t 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, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their 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 fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the 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 detecting 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 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in 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 in the BM CD34+.
4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced 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 not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.
Minor comments:
spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.
the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.