Dear Dr. XXX,
Thank you for arranging a timely review for our manuscript. We are pleased to know that our study is of general interest for the readers of NUTRITION. We have carefully evaluated the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions, r esponded to these suggestions point-by-point, and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes made to the text are in red so that they may be easily identified. With regard to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:
Enclosures:
(1)Correspondences to your reviewers;
(2)One copy of the revised manuscript;
(3)A floppy disk containing the revised manuscript.
(4)Copyright assignment
To reviewer#1
1.The author should add a few review articles on ghrelin for readers in the
Introduction.
We added two reviews in our revised manuscript.
2.The increase in ghrelin levels do not necessary indicate that weight loss in disease
is well compensated (Introduction and Discussion). This may be interpreted to be insufficient to recover to the previous body weight.
There is possibility that the increase in ghrelin levels may result from the insufficient to recover to the previous body weight, but it is more likely that the increase in ghrelin level indicate that weight loss in disease is well compensated.
Shimizu et al1 reported that baseline plasma ghrelin level was significantly higher in cachectic patients with lung cancer than in noncachectic patients and control subjects. As weight loss is a chronic process and ghrelin levels may change more rapid than weight loss, the increase in ghrelin in those chronic diseases is unlikely result from the insufficient to recover to the previous body weight. Moreover, this author also reported that follow-up plasma ghrelin level increased in the presence of anorexia after chemotherapy, which further suggests that the increase ghrelin level may represent a compensatory mechanism under catabolic–anabolic imbalance in cachectic patients with lung cancer1.
3.The authors should refer to the original report that IL-1b decrease plasma ghrelin
levels(Gastroentelorogy 120:337-345,2001)
We referred this article as the reviewer suggested. In fact, this is a mistake of us. Many thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.
4.Ref. 13 dose not include data on ghrelin.
We are so sorry to make this mistake for citing the Ref.13. We replaced the reference in the paper.
5.There is no report that desacyl ghrelin stimulates food intake. It is the consensus
at present acyl ghrelin is involved in feeding response to starvation. Therefore, the authors should be careful about their interpretation described in the last paragraph in page 10.
We made it clear in the paper that ghrelin has two isoforms (“active”and “inactive”). Only the “active”isoform is involved in feeding response to
starvation. But the “inactive”isoform has other activities like anti-proliferative activity on tumor cell lines as described in the manuscript.
To reviewer#2
Major comments
1.Earlier studies have shown that circulating ghrelin level is increased in
underweight patients with CHF, lung cancer, and liver cirrhosis. In the present study, however, plasma ghrelin level was decreased despite a significant weight loss in COPD. In addition, earlier studies have reported that circulating ghrelin correlated positively with BMI in patients with CHF and lung cancer. However, the present study demonstrated that plasma ghrelin level correlated positively with BMI in COPD patients. Thus, there are considerable discrepancies between the present study and earlier studies. These discrepancies should be discussed in detail. The author also stated the regulation of ghrelin secretion was disturbed in COPD patients. However, they did not clarify this mechanism.
We stated that the role of ghrelin in patients with COPD may be different from its role in CHF, cancer and liver cirrhosis and discussed this difference in the last paragraph of page 9.
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added that “plasma ghrelin correlated positively with percent predicted residual volume and residual volume/total lung capacity ratio”as the evidence for further supporting that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin levels.
2.The authors demonstrated that plasma ghrelin level correlated negatively with
plasma TND-a and CRP in COPD patients. However, Nagaya et al. have shown that plasma ghrelin level correlates positively with plasma TNF-a level in patients with CHF. This discrepancy should be discussed.
According to the reviewer indicated, we discussed this discrepancy in the second paragraph of page 9.
3.The author stated that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of
plasma ghrelin level in COPD. The authors should describle the relationship between plasma ghrelin level and pulmonary function in COPD.
There are evidences that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin level in lung diseases with respiratory abnormalities2,3. As our study was designed to investigate whether the plasma ghrelin levels are increased or decreased in COPD and whether the plasma ghrelin levels relates to the increased systemic inflammation in those patients, so we didn’t analysis the relationship between plasma ghrelin level and pulmonary function.
Minor comments
1.Circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm. Therefore, the authors
should describle the limitation of their measurement of ghrelin in single samples.
It’s true that circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm and to monitor the ghrelin levels in different time points is better than just measured a single sample. However, we collected the samples at the fasting state (from 9:00 p.m. on the previous night.) by venipuncture at 7:00 a.m. as most studies did2,4. So
our results can exclude the possibility that the difference between groups was result from the circadian rhythm of ghrelin and are well compared with other studies.
2.In the Results section, plasma ghrelin level in healthy controls was different with
that in 0.25+0.22ng/ml, whereas, in Figure 1A, it was approximately 1.8ng/ml.
We fixed this in our revised manuscript. We are so sorry to make this mistake.
To reviewer#3
1.About the paper of Itoh et al in AJRCC.
As the reviewer said, the study by Itoh et al was not published when the current manuscript were submitted. We discussed the difference between the findings of their study and our study in revised manuscript.
2.Abstract
Conclusion: “plasma ghrelin decreased in COPD”. This sounds like the authors have followed subjects for a long time and that the diagnosis COPD was conformed, the plasma ghrelin decreased. This was however not the aim nor the case-a reformulation is necessary.
We fixed this as the reviewer suggested in our revised manuscript.
3.Introduction
(1)Page 2. Ref.1. is a letter to the editor in Br J Nutr and is a comment
concering an earlier published paper. It is not a reference that support the statement. Several other references exist in the literature to be used instead.
Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We replaced this reference by other one.
(2)Page 2, line 5. “To understand weight loss mechanisms in this disease may be
helpful to improve quality of life in these patients”. Do you really think that if we researchers understand the mechanisms that automatically would make the patients happier?
We replaced this sentence with “To understand weight loss mechanisms in this disease may be helpful to combat weight loss in these patients”
4.Methods
(1)Patients: How were the patient and control subjects selected?
The authors state that none of the control subjects was taking and medications-was that also the case for the patients?
That was also the case for the patients. In fact, most of the COPD patients in China do not take any medications when the disease is clinically stable because of economic reason.
Page 4, line 2. A short description of ATS criteria would be helpful for readers who are not familiar with those criteria.
As those criteria are widely used by researcher and physicians, we did not describe them in our paper as some paper did. If you think it is necessary to do so, we may add a short description.
Page4, line3, what do you mean by “other diseases”? COPD patients most
often have a lot of other diseases.
We are so sorry to mis-express this - we just means that those patients did not have the disease that known to affect the plasma ghrelin level. We fixed it in our revised manuscript.
Page 4, line 5. If I understand it correctly, none of the COPD patients were smokers or ex-smokers, i.e. another reason exists for their COPD. Cigarette smoking is the main cause of COPD, but here you have studied patients having other reasons for the disease. What dose this mean regarding the representativity of the study group?Could it affect the results in some way?
Smoking increases the plasma ghrelin level5. It is difficult for us to define “ex-smokers” because there is no study about that whether the ex-smoking will affect the plasma ghrelin level or not. This may lead to the representativity problem. However, those patients in our study still lost the weight and had system inflammation as most COPD patients did. Further study should be designed to investigate the effect of ex-smoking on plasma ghrelin level.
Page 4, line 6.Why do the authors refer to Whatmore et al? That study investigated ghrelin in healthy adolescents and has nothing to do with factor known to affect serum ghrelin level.
We are sorry to make this mistake. We replaced this reference.
(2)Body composition
Page 4, last line – page 5, line1. The deuterium dilution study performed by Baarends et al was using arm – to – foot bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy. In the current manuscript the foot – to – foot bioelectrical impedance assessment is used. The readers are lead to believe that the foot – to – foot BIA is also validated with deuterium dilution in COPD patients, which I think is not the case.
Thanks for the carefulness of the reviewer. However, there are still evidences that our method is well correlated with DEXA6and arm –to –foot bioelectrical impedance7, so it is appropriate to use this method in our study. However, because those sentences will lead to the confusion, we deleted them in revised manuscript according to suggestion of the reviewer.
Page 5, line 4. The %fat was calculated by the machine. It should be stated on which material these calculations are based on – healthy subject? –young or old? – How many.
According to the instruction of the manufactory, we selected the standard model for this calculation (the other model was athletic). We stated this in the revised manuscript.
(3)Statistical
A reference by Scols et al is used to strengthen the use of values below the detection limit and the use of log. Other reasons need to be provided. What if Schols et al did a statistical error using values that were below the detection limit? There do exist statistical reasonsfor log the values –do they exist in this manuscript?
It’s very important to select a suitable statistical method for process the data. There are 6 data below the detection limit in ghrelin and 1 data in leptin. If
these data were discarded, it may increase the possibility of type two error as lower ghrelin levels were exclude. However, if the data were analyzed originally, it may increase the possibility of type one error as they below the detection limit.
So it is reasonable to adopt the method used by Schols et al.
As to log transformation, we added the necessary information in the text according to the opinion of the reviewer.
5.Discussion
Page 8. line 2-3. COPD patients had lower ghrelin levels compared to the control subjects. Did the control subjects have “normal” ghrelin values?
We selected seventeen age-matched healthy males as control subjects.
Those subjects were healthy. So we can take their ghrelin levels as “normal”
ghrelin values. However, we think true “normal ghrelin values” should be based on large population study.
Page9. line 18. Following “CHF, cancer and liver cirrhosis” a reference is needed here.
We added references as the reviewer suggested.
Page9. last line.ghrelin instead of gherlin.
We fixed it.
Page 11. Delete the summary, it is the same as the conclusion in the abstract.
We wrote the summary according to the guideline for author of the journal. If you think the summary should be cut, we may delete it.
6.Reference
As mentioned above, some of the references are not appropriate. They should be replaced by more appropriate and explanatory references.
Many thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We replaced those references in the revised manuscript.
References:
1. Shimizu, Y., Nagaya, N., Isobe, T., et al. Increased plasma ghrelin level in lung cancer cachexia. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 774
2. Itoh, T., Nagaya, N., Yoshikawa, M., et al. Elevated Plasma Ghrelin Level in Underweight Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;
3. Haqq, A. M., Stadler, D. D., Jackson, R. H., et al. Effects of growth hormone on pulmonary function, sleep quality, behavior, cognition, growth velocity, body composition, and resting energy expenditure in Prader-Willi syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88: 2206
4. Nagaya, N., Uematsu, M., Kojima, M., et al. Elevated circulating level of ghrelin in cachexia associated with chronic heart failure: relationships between ghrelin and anabolic/catabolic factors. Circulation 2001; 104: 2034
5. Fagerberg, B., Hulten, L. M.,Hulthe, J. Plasma ghrelin, body fat, insulin resistance, and smoking in clinically healthy men: the atherosclerosis and insulin resistance study. Metabolism 2003; 52: 1460
6. Tyrrell, V. J., Richards, G., Hofman, P., et al. Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable tool for the measurement of body composition in children. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord
2001; 25: 273
7. Nunez, C., Gallagher, D., Visser, M., et al. Bioimpedance analysis: evaluation of leg-to-leg system based on pressure contact footpad electrodes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: 524
一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。
但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。
这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。
第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！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
SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览
一、最初投稿Cover letter
Dear Editors:
We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.
In this work, we evaluated …… (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.
The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:
1) Name A E-mail: ××××@××××
2) Name B E-mail: ××××@××××
We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We submit our manuscript entitled “XXXXX” for possible publication in JOURNAL NAME.
PUT ABSTRACT HERE!
We certify that we have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the appropriateness of the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. All authors have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approve it for publication. This manuscript has not been published in whole or in part nor is it being considered for publication elsewhere. None of the authors of this manuscript have a financial interest related to this work.
Thanks very much for your attention to our manuscript．
Best Regards,
XXXX
Address xxxxxxx
PhoneXXXXXX
Email: xxxxxx
二、催稿信
Dear Prof. ×××:
Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three
months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?
I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer’s comments.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Best regards!
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××
三、修改稿Cover letter
Dear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××
四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）
List of Responses
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #1:
1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)
Response: ××××××
2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)
Response: ××××××
。。。。。。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏
针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：
We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...
We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
It is really true as Reviewer su ggested that……
We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion
As Reviewer suggested that……
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……
最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Reviewer #2:
同上述
Reviewer #3:
××××××
Other changes:
1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”
2. Line 107, “……” was added
3. Line 129, “……” was deleted
××××××
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope t hat the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
五、文章接受后可以考虑感谢一下负责你文章的编辑或主编（根据需要）
Dear Prof. ××××××:
Thanks very much for your kind work and consideration on publication of our paper. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers. Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××
六、询问校稿信件（如果文章接受后时间较长）
Dear ×××:
Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of our accepted manuscript titled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号), since the copyright agreement for publication has been sent to you two months ago. I am just wondering that how long I can receive the proof of our manuscript from you?
I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time for a reply. I am very pleased to hear from you.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××
七、文章校稿信件
Dear Mr. ×××:
Thanks very much for your kind letter about the proof of our paper titled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号) for publication in “Journal Name”. We have finished the proof reading and checking
carefully, and some corrections about the proof and the answers to the queries are provided
below.
Corrections:
1. In ****** should be **** (Page ***, Right column, line***)
2. In **** the “*****” should be “****” (Page ****, Right column, line****)
Answers for “author queries”:
1. *********************.
2. **********************
3. **********************
We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team.
If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××
一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。
第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！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：
意见1：图2太小。
意见2：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1.1采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：
List of Actions
LOA1: 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: Figure 2 has been enlarged.
LOA6: All typos have been removed.
==================分页=======================
Responses to Editor
请在修改稿中用双倍行距。
We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.
==================分页=======================
Responses to Reviewers
To Reviewer 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。
Thank you for pointing this out. A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s 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)”
意见2：算法表述不明确。
We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm ***, see LOA3.
“blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”
意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。
We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.
“blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”
==================分页=======================
To Reviewer 2:
意见1：图2太小。
We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.
意见2：第3页有个错别字。
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。这里权当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。
自己首先抛砖引玉：
关于补充实验的问题：
1.如果能补充的话，尽量补，除非因为样本的原因或是毕业在即！
2.说明本次研究的主要目的：如主要是测血清水平的而不是测蛋白水平或基因水平的，
证实本实验足以得出相应结论。（但谦虚是必要的，先感谢一下reviewer的意见，然后
We understand that **(要补的实验）may better reveal the ....... However, in the present
study, we mainly focused on......, and we think that ***(你已经做的实验）may not be
optimal, but should be sufficient to draw a conclusion that ......
3.以前文献已经做过，直接引用。并且说明本次实验是从另一个层面来证实他们的结论。
4. 自己曾经遇到的一个问题以及自己的回答，供大家参考：
Question: Of the patients who had ** how many had biopsies? If they did and were**+
how many revealed characteristics of ** associated vasculitis? Did any biopsies in
patients who were not ** + reveal characteristics of ** associated vasculitis?
Re: This is one limitation of this study, in consideration of injury of biopsies and our
central aim is to study the relationship between serum ** and **, so we have not
performed renal biopsies. We understand that renal biopsies can better reveal the
correlation between ** and **, it will be considered in our further study. 这是我的一个
例子，若干年前了，语言还显幼稚了
reviewer的其中一条建议：
4.There is no data of pDCs in liver biopsy tissues in this study.
我的responese：
♀The main aim of our study was designed to observe the differences of function and
phenotypes of circulating #####in the### patients with ### which has not been
studied before. In addition, the elevated serum ALT level was also the relative indicator
of liver inflammation. Perhaps the discussion concerning to the pDCs in the liver tissues
or hepatic lymph nodes must be added in the discussion part of the paper, which has
been underlined with red lines in the page 15 of revised section.
♀It will be of great interest to initiate some research on the function and expression of pDCs in liver biopsy tissues. Thank you for the sincere comments about this issue and further consideration should be taken to the pDCs in liver biopsy tissues in our future study. 关键看你的文章是否已经达到了所投杂志的水平。有时修稿意见可能只是为了表达审稿人能看到问题，不一定是要补充的。如果都补充了，也许投给这个杂志就亏了。我的两个未补实验答复，供大家参考：
Q：It would significantly strengthen the paper if the authors attempted to better characterize these interactions using mutated forms of the two proteins. They should also investigate whether xxx.
A：The xxx under investigation in our laboratory. Unfortunately, results are unavailable at this point.
Q：The experiments presented do not support the conclusion that "…xxx..."etc as stated in the abstract or the title in results stating that "...xxx...". Much more elaborate experiments involving studies of xxx and studies of xxx would be required for such conclusions (for example using Xenopus egg extracts). Using kinase-dead and destruction deficient forms of xxx would help pinpoint the molecular mechanisms involved. Though I realize such experiments may be beyond the scope of the present article, in their absence careful phrasing is essential.
A: We agree with the reviewer, and have toned down our conclusions. 看了大家的帖子，获益匪浅！我昨天刚收到编辑部的DECISION LETTER，2个reviewer的意见基本是positive，其中一个reviewer提出了一些需要解释的问题外，没提出补任何实验，然而另一个reviewer的comments如下：
The study is technically well performed and most of data are straightforward and convincing. They confirm suggestion made by other laboratories and try to go further in order to identify signals and mechanisms able to recruit MSCs into damaged liver. The hypothesis of *** is rational and of general interest. I can offer the following comments. Major comments:
In its present form the study provides data that are interesting and suggestive but lacks of a definitive proof of the role of ** in mediating homing of MSCs into damaged parenchyma. Since authors clearly suggested with their data a major role for ** they should carry on the same experiments in ** -/- mice (used in ref. 20 by some of the authors of the present study) in order to unequivocally confirm their hypothesis. These data would enormously enhance the relevance of the overall message.
这位reviewer需要我们补充的实验我们实验室没法完成，因为国内还没有这种knockout 的小鼠，审稿人审稿时发现本文的通讯作者一篇文章（ref.20）中用到了该小鼠，估计他以为我们有此条件完成，然而那篇文章是我们老板在国外做postdoc时完成的，现在那个实验室已停止那个方向的实验了，因此我们目前绝对不可能在3个月内补充这个实验，只能向编辑部解释原因了！不知大家是否更好的主意，如果进行argue，大家能否帮忙提供委婉而有力的英文表述，本人将感激不尽！信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:41:58 星期五), 转信
如何避免审稿人的大斧
Stephen D. Senturia
译者序：本文是发表在最近一期IEEE/ASME J MEMS的一篇关于如何撰写科技论文的文
章
。作者Stephen D. Senturia（MIT电子系教授）从自己作为论文作者和审稿人双重角色的经验出发，对如何撰写科技论文发表了一些非常中肯也非常重要的建议。大家知道，尽管IEEE系列杂志在SCI中的影响因子相对基础研究的杂志还很低，甚至有的杂志还不是
SCI收录期刊，但是IEEE系列杂志在电子工程的众多领域中几乎都是名列前茅的，其审稿
非常严格。作者作为IEEE系列杂志中几个杂志的审稿人、编辑，对这些杂志有透彻的了解，因此，相信这些建议会对大家有些帮助；同时，作者的建议是通用的，对其它领域的作者也会有所帮助。
原文并不长，但是考虑到其中作者使用了一些非科技词汇，查找这些词汇会用去不少时间，因此译者试图根据自己的理解翻译此文，希望能为大家节约一点时间。错误之处难免，请谅解。
转载可以，但务请注明原作者。
Saab900cd
--
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧-摘要
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:42:34 星期五), 转信
编辑注：Stephen D. Senturia从1992年IEEE/ASME J MEMS（2002年影响因子2.8，译者
注）创刊以来就一直是该杂志的编委会成员，并在1998年被提名为高级编辑。这些连同
他1985年－1995年作为IEEE T Electron Dev（2002年影响因子1.9，译者注）Solid-St
ate Sensors的编辑的经验，作者已经累计具有17年作为IEEE杂志编辑的经验。这些年里
，Steve（作者名字的简称，译者注）总结了论文作者们给审稿人带来的大量的问题，因此我们邀请他撰写了下面的这篇“给作者的建议”，告诉大家如何使审稿人满意，并且
让他们“没有别的选择”，只能同意论文发表。
摘要：根据Steve多年作为J MEMS编辑的经验，本文是他给科技论文作者们的一些建议。
如果能够遵循这些建议，将大大降低论文在审稿过程中遭到拒绝的风险。本文的前提是有些事情会使审稿人感到气愤，并且一旦他们开始气愤，就会做出消极和伤害性的决定。因此，作者用审稿人的“大斧”来比喻这些决定，并且建议如何避免它们。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－一、序言
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:43:16 星期五), 转信
由于这是我个人的评论，因此在后面的叙述中我将使用第一人称，不过严格一些的作者不会在科技文献中使用第一人称。在我35年研究工作的生涯中，我撰写了很多科技论文，每次当我打开从杂志编辑部寄来的装有我宝贝一样的手稿的信的时候，我总是迫不及待地拆开信封，结果是或者做一些小的修改，或者大幅度重写，甚至是判处死刑——只能把手稿扔进垃圾桶。
现在，我也已经作为编辑和审稿人有17年了，从我审过的无数的论文和与论文数量几乎
相等的不幸的作者身上，我感觉到审稿人打击或者拒绝某些论文的根本原因还是这些论文确实存在很多缺点。即使不是绝大多数，也是很多作者都不同意这一点，至少现在。因此，我想如果我能够给出一些实际的建议使他们能够避免审稿人的大斧和致命一击，将会对论文作者们有所帮助。
一篇科技论文的主要目的是与感兴趣的读者交流新的信息，并教给他们一些新的知识。许多作者忘记了这一点；相反，他们把写作过程视为炫耀自己、让读者注目他们的机会，甚至于从某种程度上影响读者，例如给出了太多或者太少的内容和材料。考虑到论文的种类比较多，我这里选择一个实验论文作为假设的例子。这个文章的作者对实验方法进行了一点小改进，然后用这个方法得到了一些新的结果，并把这些结果与同样也只是对已发表的理论模型做了一点小改进而得到的结果进行对比。（呵呵，很精辟的例子，已经理解了为什么这个现象会出现，希望给出他们自己的解释，尽管他们尚未做过权威的实验来证实他们的假设。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－二、Senturia的提纲
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:43:52 星期五), 转信
那么作者们如何考虑安排和撰写这篇论文呢？我给出一个简单的提纲列在下面，同时给出一些更为深入的讨论：
n （几乎）没有任何事情是新的
n 依赖与可信度指数
n 谨慎使用投机性词汇
n 不要学朗费罗
n 不要把兔子从帽子里拿出来
n 彻底挖掘所有的金矿
n 记住：审稿人都是不善辞令的，作者（某种程度上）是偏执的
违背后面每一条提纲下面所解释的原则都会导致审稿人生气，一旦他们开始生气，他们就会拿出大斧，并有目的地挥舞砍去。我从来不相信一篇论文已经写到无法再提高的程度，也许一个正常的审稿人可能会认为作者已经基本完成了一个较高水平的研究工作，但是一个发怒的审稿人却比这个正常的审稿人更能够发现问题，不管是研究工作内容还是写作方法。如果这样使审稿人更加生气，显然是十分愚蠢的。每个作者的目标都是让审稿人的大斧一直放在鞘里。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－三、（几乎）没有任?
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:44:41 星期五), 转信
地球人都知道现在天底下已经没有什么新东西了，除了那些比较有信心的人自以为他的工作还是独一无二的。也许偶尔还会有几个真正独特和令人惊异的结果发表以外，我们绝大多数人的工作都是建立在别人工作的基础上的。
每个作者都有责任和义务写清楚明确的上下文，以便读者通过序论和文献引用（是作者真正读过的，而不是从其它参考文献中简单拷贝过来的）能够知道你的新工作属于哪部分。如果作者不知道相关文献，他应该上网去查一查。我曾经告诉我的研究生，“首先决定你做什么，然后去图书馆找找！”他们也许找不到他们做的，但是可以找到所有相关的材料，仔细阅读这些材料来确定真正相关的子集，这些需要引用。
另外有一些原则需要遵循：
>如果你有一个主题相近的论文已投给会议正在审稿或者已被杂志接收但尚未印刷，你有
责任告诉编辑和审稿人并且提供该论文的复印件帮助审稿过程的进行。如果审稿人发现你有相关论文掩藏起来——也许这是使审稿人气愤的唯一最重要的原因。这是真正的气愤——审稿人会认为你在欺骗审稿过程，于是大斧来了。
>如果一个文献与你的研究足够相关而使你引用它，那么它和你的结果也是相关的。许多
作者在论文开始堆砌很多参考文献进行装饰，但是后面却从来不把自己声称的新结果与究者对结果进行证实和对比，如果论文的工作没有一点与前人的比较，审稿人会很恼火，于是他们会抽出大斧。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－四、依靠可信度指数
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:45:08 星期五), 转信
科学进步的本质是结果的可信度，这些结果能够被不同的研究者重复和检验。如果这样定义的话，那么真正新的研究结果在被别人重复以前是没有经过科学验证的。这就引出了可信度指数的概念。
前面假定的论文在实验方法和理论模型都有些小改进，并出现了一些比较奇怪的结果，在编写这个论文的提纲的时候，作者应该仔细考虑提纲不同要素的可信度。显然，已经出版的文献结果（姑且不管它正确与否）是高度可信的。另外基本物理规律、已经建立的理论和模型，以及被广泛使用的实验方法等也都是高度可信的。所有这些具有很高的可信度指数。
与此相反，新东西的可信度指数是非常低的。如果一个结果还没有被其他人重复，那么它就不是已经“确定的”，因此不如已经被同行验证的结果可信，而作者关于新结果的
猜测和想象则是最低的可信度。但是如果一个新实验结果在论文里有足够多的证明，审稿人可能会接受它，即使他们不同意作者对于新现象猜测性的解释。
所有这些导致了可信度指数原则，它能够自动确定论文内容的顺序。
>按照可信度递减的顺序安排论文内容。
这种做法的优点不言而喻。如果一个论文是按照可信度递减的顺序安排的，所有的读者都会同意最开始论述的内容，因为它有最高可信度；但是到后面读者会犹豫是否接受一个新的实验结果（如果恰到好处地解释，就会接受）或者推测性的解释。一个好的论文永远不要在第一个中等或者低可信度内容出现以后再出现重要的、高可信度的内容。那些不同意作者观点的读者，也能够得益于能够在出现不同意见以前了解所有高可信度的材料，因此可以将不同意见集中在正确的问题上。
试样准备方法应该真实反应作者所做的工作，应当具备较高的可信度并且应该放在文章的开始部分。作者经常犯的一个错误是直到论文后面低可信度部分才给出新试样的制备等内容，让读者莫名其妙。这种写作方法会使论文看上去杂乱无章，非常难以阅读和理解，而难以阅读的论文当然会使审稿人非常恼火。
当你报告一个新的实验过程的时候，为了保持它的高可信度，你应该用例子说明你是如何从原始数据得到精炼数据，并最终得到分析结果的。同样，对于校准也需要做这样的说明（如果不是基于商用仪器的精度指标），包括样品数量、数据与误差带之间的关系（满量程吗？平均值的概率偏差等）。如果新方法能够给出一个大家都熟悉的例子所期望的结果，无疑这是可信度的基础。这有助于提高你新实验结果的可信度，大概也是撰写论文需要首先考虑的要点。
如果要报道一个新模型，你需要把模型建立在一个高可信度的起点，并在需要清楚地说明从哪儿开始是你采用尚未经过证明的假设而使得可信度开始变化的。
至于模型和实验谁在前面，这大概需要取决于爱好了。如果这两者都有新结果，那么需
这种方法最令人高兴的结果是，作为作者，你被引导着在所有比较可信度的材料，如新的实验结果，已经展示完全后才开始假设和猜测。这有时会给作者带来不小的困难。现在的趋势是提出结果，给出评论和意见；然后再提出一些新的结果，再给出评论。在开始假设和猜测以前给出所有的高可信度材料。这样，审稿人会喜欢你。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－五、谨慎使用投机性?
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:45:35 星期五), 转信
读者可能会奇怪为什么我在这里对投机性词汇感兴趣。关于这方面的认识，我要感谢M
IT的Arthur Smith教授。我和他在70年代初期共同写过一篇论文，他提醒我尽量不要使
用被他称为“投机性”词汇的一些词，如“obviously”，“probably”，“
certainly
”，“undoubtedly”等。这是因为从技术的角度看，如果你需要使用表示可能性的词汇
，这说明你不能无法证明你的观点，而是在进行假设和猜测。因此：
>如果你发现自己愿意使用投机性词汇，它意味着你不知道自己在说什么，因此这些材料
的可信度自然非常低。用明确表示你在进行假设的词汇来代替投机性的词汇，并将相关的评论和低可信度的假设放在论文合适的地方。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－六、不要学朗费罗
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:46:08 星期五), 转信
在小说“路边酒店的故事”中，作者朗费罗借用坐在酒店炉火旁的旅客的嘴描写了一系
列的故事。尽管朗费罗是一个极好的故事作者，我们在写作科技文献的时候不能采用他的方法。这种方法确实比较吸引人，讲个事实，再讲一段故事来解释一下事实；然后再讲另一个事实和解释它的故事，直到所有的事实讲完。（特别是化学研究人员比较喜欢使用这种方法）。这种方法错误的地方在于它与可信度降低原则相违背。因此，故事很好，但是那可能是虚构的；科学写作需要的是不是虚构，而是真实。要抵抗住现代朗费罗式的诱惑，把所有的高可信度内容都提出以后，再用类似“Discussion”或者“
Inte
rpretation”之类的标题来表述你开始进行假设的部分。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－七、不要把兔子从礼?
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:47:13 星期五), 转信
我们都能回忆起孩童时代坐在学校拥挤的礼堂里，兴奋地看着前来表演的魔术师从他的礼帽里变出一只兔子的情形。有一些科技文献作者试图去模仿魔术师，但是他们的这种表演却很乏味。他们把一个验证性的实验藏起来，却引导读者进入歧途，然后这时，也只有这时，他们才拿出读者希望看到的能够证明作者观点的实验。这种方法有两个问题
：一是显然与可信度递减原则相违背，他们（大概）在一些低可信度的解释后面才提出高可信度的材料；二是这会给推理过程带来很大的问题和缺点。审稿人顽强地寻找着缺点，却遇上了从礼帽里变出来的兔子。原则很简单：不要这样做。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－八、彻底挖掘所有的?
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:50:11 星期五), 转信
想象一下你正走在一个荒凉的峡谷里面，拿着几铲看上去希望很大的泥土，把他们装进坛子里，然后在附近的一个小溪边冲洗它们。这时你突然发现了几块金子，你非常高兴，于是决定跑到最近的采矿办公室申请提出自己的所有权。于是，你对世界声明你的所有权，但是很令人费解地是再也没有回去挖掘那里的金子。
如果你这样做，每个人都会认为你是个傻子，但是事实上，很多科技文献作者恰恰没有回去挖掘他们的金子。获得好的数据要用去大量的时间和努力（同时还有大笔费劲心思得来的经费），这些数据就好比能产出几个金块的泥土。宣布所有权类似于发表论文－通过这个过程你告诉全世界这附近有金子。考虑到这些数据的成本，如果不努力找出所有的金子实际上一件非常傻的事情，至少，也要找出你已经挖掘的这些泥土里的所有金子。
很遗憾，在我的观点看来，很多作者过早地放弃了从数据中获得更多内容的机会。如果你能够证明你对所获得的数据说明什么或者不说明什么有深入的理解，尽管这可能对你挖掘到的金子能不能发表是不关键的，但是你在审稿人那里成功的机会就大大增加了。例如，有的作者仅着眼于从能够进行测量的信号，但是却忽略了噪音谱可能会引起限制可检测能力的信息。另外有些作者未能发现掩藏在结果下面的相互关系，这些关系或许能够提供发现新的或者重要东西的线索。简而言之，要有耐心。试着从数据中挖掘所有并且有潜在的兴趣，审稿人会为你的勤奋和坦诚鼓掌。
--
发信人: qjj (老Q), 信区: Thesis
标题: 如何避免审稿人的大斧－九、记住：审稿人是?
发信站: 北大未名站(2003年07月04日14:51:38 星期五), 转信
我给出一个关于如何对待审稿人意见的方针，作为本文的结束。
当审稿人抱怨文章的某些内容时，这是一个非常好的机会来了解文章中的问题。不是所有审稿人的所有意见都是正确或者合适的批判，但是我敢说我遇到的批评中90％以上都在某种程度上是有价值和益处的。
但是，审稿人是不善辞令的。审稿人经常非常恶劣地表达他们的想法，这使他们的意见看上去非常武断和随意，甚至反复无常。于是作者变得非常气愤和偏执。那么该怎么办呢？
作为作者，你有责任逐条回复审稿人的批判意见。你对此所持的态度对论文能否顺利发表有很大的影响。如果象有些作者一样，你试图威胁审稿人（或者编辑）不对论文做任何建设性的反馈而投稿，审稿人（和编辑）都会用同样的方式对待你，把你放在一边。我曾经见过很多例子，愤怒的作者有力地反驳审稿人的意见，但是最后他们的论文却没办法发表，因为他们没有把反驳中的精华用于修改他们宝贝一样的论文。自负妨碍采取建设性的反馈措施，而偏执则会削弱这些措施。
维护自己工作的科学性是一项需要从谦逊和尊重别人已经建立的知识的基础上来完成的任务。尽管这很困难，当你收到审稿人的意见的时候，压住自己的火气和反驳，试着想想为什么审稿人会在这一点上找麻烦？作为作者，如果你能够指出为什么审稿人会给出
这个意见，你就能够同时发现提高论文和使审稿人满意的方法了。通常，一篇论文的失败不是刚好在审稿人提出问题之处，而是往往在其它的地方，如没有精心安排的主题和评论的次序，或者在文章其它什么地方省略了几个解释用的词等。阅读审稿人的信的时候需要抱着非常虚心的态度，这能使你缩短论文发表的时间。
当然，有些审稿人的意见非常明显的是错误的，如果你能够非常礼貌并且非常职业地处理相关的意见，编辑会比较容易同意你对审稿人的反驳意见。因此，我的建议是重新列出审稿人的每条意见和你对此意见的评论，以及你如何在论文中进行修改的。如果你对此做了足够好的工作和努力，编辑就有可能决定接收论文而不需要再把论文寄给审稿人重新进行审稿，这会节约几个星期的发表时间。另外，你因为注意审稿人不善辞令而建立起来的声誉，会使你的职业生涯受益匪浅。
同时，下次你会写出更好的论文。
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 comments, 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 submission will be considered a new manuscript.
To submit a revision, go to https://www.doczj.com/doc/0e12131673.html,/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, PhD
Editor
Life Sciences
Format 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 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/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential 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 bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.
The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract 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 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 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 alkaloid)
>>>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 research 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 cells 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 checked for errors. If you have questions or