专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何
写
第一，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候一定要说：谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！
第二，如果审稿人提 ___你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样说，等于委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他 ___。
第三，如果审稿人 ___明显有问题，也不说能说审稿人 ___是错误的，可以他 ___发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调自己的观点是正确的。一句话，就是凭证据说话。
第四，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。那么，不用客气，直接写信给，痛批审稿人。（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。）
第五，在回复信的结尾最好写上再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。
保持正确的语调，做出回应。
说明
（1）在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。
（2）在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。
（3）里很多人都会轻易犯错，尤其是刚发论文的时候，总觉得自己一定要根据审稿人的每一条意见都做出修改。我以自己的亲身
经历发誓，这样做只会使你的论文变得支离破碎，可读性变差且言之无物（因为我自己曾改出过这么一篇不忍直视的论文，连我自己都读不下去）。论文上署的是你的名字，你得对所有内容负责。
（4）不妨想想审稿人的审稿动机和职责，他们才不会去想这些审稿意见对你的论文究竟有没有用。如果你不同意某些意见，或者觉得一些意见并不能提升你论文的价值的话，那就把握好回复的分寸，对这些意见予以一定反驳，并且反驳时尽量使用 ___，使之有理有据。
以下是我的文章的审稿意见，以及我对审稿意见的回复。
***先生
您好！
您的稿件已通过专家审查，我刊同意对原稿进行修改后刊用。请按专家意见、我刊 ___修改。
专家意见如下：
1. 题目太大。水稻基因型的筛选指标有多种。本文主要涉及到性状指标、营养指标。建议对题目作些限定。
2. 关键词中英文顺序不一致。
3. 文中存在部分错别字
4.
讨论水培4周的干物重相对值与收获期各相对值之间的相关系数达不到显著的原因。除了作者提出的水稻根系对土壤磷可利用性的影响之外，不同品种生育期的差异
也可能影响对磷的吸收利用，由于文中未列出品种生育期，所以很难核对，建议作者作进一步的思考和核实分析。如果是事实，可以补充。
5. 请注意引用我刊文章。
看了这个审稿意见，其实第2，3，5是小问题，主要是针对第1和第4条
我的回复如下：
******部先生、女士：
您好！
非常感谢和审稿人对“********”一文的大力斧正，作者已按照贵刊的要求作了详细修改，尚有不妥之处敬请指正。现将贵刊所提的问题回答如下：
1)
关于题目太大的问题。的确，正如审稿意见上所说的那样，耐低磷水稻基因型的筛选指标有很多种，除了本文涉及到的性状指标和营养指标以外，还有其它的生理生
化指标。然而，目前在筛选耐低磷水稻基因型的工作中一般还是用性状指标和营养指标来作筛选的。另外，也很难找到一个非常恰当的名词来代替文中所讨论到的所
有指标。因此文中的题目才用了“筛选指标”这个范围稍微有点大的词。
2)
关于不同水稻品种生育期的差异也可能影响水稻对磷的吸收利用问题。笔者同意审稿人的观点，也认为不同水稻生育期的差异会对水稻吸收利用磷素造成一定的影
响。同时，也认为开展不同水稻品种生育期的差异对水稻吸收利用磷素的影响方面的研究对筛选和培育耐低磷水稻基因型工作具有较大的理论和实际意义。然而，本
文研究的主要目的是研究不同供磷条件下水稻苗期的各性状指标的变异情况以及水稻在水培条件苗期的性状指标与大田试验条件下收获期的性状指标之间的相互关
系。因此本文的大田试验的设计相对比较简单，这样从本试验的结果和数据中很难探讨不同水稻品种生育期的差异对水稻吸收利用磷素的影响方面的问题。当然，笔
者可以在以后的工作中进行上述问题的研究。
3) 文中的英文摘要以及其它需修改处按贵刊的要求作了修改，有不当之处，望来电或来信告知，以便改正。
此致！
敬礼！
在投期刊杂志的时候，幸运的直接Aept，如果可以Aept with minim revision也还算不错，基本上调调版式改改文字就可以满足要求。但如果遇到Aept with major revision也一定不要气馁，因为机会仍然存在，所谓大修一般可能是缺少必要的实验或者证明支持，说服力不够。给你修改的机会也是因为他们看中文章的内容，所以一定要针对审稿人 ___认真修改。这个过程是个很有收获的过程。但如果真的不幸遭遇Reject，也不要灰心，好好地学习审稿人___，通常他们 ___还是非常专业与中肯的，然后逐条修改后再向该刊或者他刊发起新一轮的进攻，呵呵~~~
今天在小木虫上学习到一些关于回复审稿人意见的心得，觉得很有道理，就拿过来让更多关注的TX看到。其实在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写清修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。对审稿人___提出不同的看法也应该讲究一定的技巧。
首先，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候，第一句话一定要说：“谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！！”
其次，在回复信的结尾最好写上“再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。”这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。
再次，如果审稿人提 ___你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样就委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他 ___。
第四，如果审稿人 ___明显有问题。那么没办法了，你必须据理力争。但是，你一定 ___：“审稿人先生，我认为你 ___是错的！”你不必对他 ___发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调你的观点是正确的。简单说就是“既不说你对，也不说我对，证据说话”。
以上四点我还是认可的，很受用。这也很容易让人懂，就是让你的文字活起来，倘若你是审稿人也会心里觉得舒服。
虽然cover letter的内容也都是客套话，但是跟审稿人看着也会舒心不少。特别是审稿人，需要认真地无偿地审阅文章，难能可贵的是还需要找出不足的地方。即便有时因为研究方向不是很一致，他们有的问题有点业余，又或者提意见时比较不客气，回复审稿意见的时候也一定要尊重他们。
很正常的，因为稿件不可能只有一份，很多份无法那么多人都看的，而且说明稿子也确实没有什么亮点，无法刺激别人的兴奋点，所以一个人看了就不会再又第二个人去看了。
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：很少杂志把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。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 ments for the manuscript. Aording 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 ___，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 ment 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 **, xx. We revised the manuscript in aordance with the reviewers’ ments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.
Here below is our description on revision aording to the reviewers’ ments.
Part A (Reviewer 1)
1. The reviewer’s ment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s ment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Part B (Reviewer 2)
1. The reviewer’s ment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s ment: ......
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 ments:
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" pared 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 pared 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 pared 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 ments:
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 bine figure 1A and B, in order to confirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control (HT1080).
Answer to referee 1 ment:
1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to pare 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 plement 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.
3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using mercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Rebinant 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
最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.
SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全 修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). 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 corr ections 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: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏 針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
审稿意见回复模板,中文 篇一：审稿意见模板 如何学习审稿 专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。 一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量
评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。 那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。 做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全 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 corr ections 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 ……...
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 suggested 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 that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见 Response to Editor and Reviewer 这是我的英文修改稿回复信 Dear Editor, RE: Manuscript ID We would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments. Below is our response to their comments. Thanks for all the help. Best wishes, Dr. XXX Corresponding Author 下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答： 一些习惯用语如下： Revision —authors’ response Reviewer #1: Major comments
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理） 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）
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板 SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板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 w ell as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully a nd have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red i n the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers 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 suggested 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. Thes e 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 that the correction will m eet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions 以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。与大家分享。 从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。这些意见分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见，我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高文章的质量。
如何学习审稿 专家学者为什么愿意拿出大量的时间审稿呢?为期刊审稿是义务，也是一份荣耀，更是自我价值的实现，那就是为进步做出了一份贡献。审稿人都是志愿提供服务而不计报酬。当然，通过审稿还会得到其他好处，（1）首先是精神上的收获，能够增加科学知识，体验科学交流和论争的乐趣；（2）最新的研究进展在发表之前就有机会看到（不亦快哉！）；（3）通过对照其他审稿人的评论和编辑的稿件处理意见，可提高自己的审稿技能；（4）通过发现论文中的错误，可以学习如何写出更有竞争力的稿件；（5）会得到编辑的尊敬，甚或有机会被邀请加入学会或编委会；例如美国呼吸与危重监护杂志（AJRCCM）编委会的任命，就是完全根据审稿人的审稿是否中肯、严谨、及时。 一个优秀的审稿人又有什么特征呢? Black等曾对英国杂志（BMJ）的审稿人进行过评价，其目的是想明确高水平审稿人的特征，特别是在审稿花费时间和审回时间方面。他们对BMJ的420份稿件的审稿人进行了调查，2位编辑和稿件的责任作者对审稿质量进行独立评估。结果编辑和论文作者的评估都显示，经过流行病学或统计学培训是提供高质量评阅的审稿人的唯一显著性相关因素。在编辑的质量评估中，年轻是高质量评阅的独立预测因素。评审花费的时间与审稿质量的提高相关，但超过3小时则无更大意义。通常认为，正在从事研究工作的人员、拥有学术职位者、科研资助团体成员，应该会提供更高质量的审稿，但令人意外的是，这项研究并没有发现审稿质量与上述特征相关。这一结果对于编辑的意义是，要发现优秀的审稿人，只有不断试用新人，评估他们的表现，然后决定是否继续用他们。建议征集接受过流行病学和统计学训练的、年龄在40岁左右的审稿人。 那么年轻学者如何学习、提高审稿技能呢?最重要的是在实践中提高，就是通过审稿提高审稿水平。认真研读自己投稿得回的评审意见，以学习他人是如何审稿的。再就是比较同一稿件自己的审稿意见和其他审稿人的意见，发现新的视角，得到有益反馈。对于有条件的年轻学者，可以替自己的上级（例如老师、上级医师等）草拟审稿意见，由此可得到更为全面的训练和提高。 做好审稿工作需要什么?第一是能动性。对同行要有绝对的责任感，坚信通过同行评阅认定的高水准的文献，对科学进步是至关重要的。要珍惜这样的机会，审阅一篇好文章，即得到知识，又得到乐趣，不亚于参加一场研讨会。审稿的质量具有重要的感染力，可影响到作者的学术态度和学术行为。其次是要具备科学技能。审稿人面临的挑战是，要发现那些作者本人没有发现的东西。这是一项艰巨的任务，需要两项科学技能，一是对文献有全面掌握，即熟悉进展，又熟悉经典；二是掌握相关的科学知识，能够将科理和科学发现应用到新的科学研究中。当然，审稿人也会碰到自己不熟悉的知识点，这时可以向他人请教、学习，或者谢绝审稿，请编辑另找他人。第三要有乐于助人的态度。做好审稿工作需要相当大的智力投入，又不能很快得到审稿人所在学术机构或同行的认可。令作者满意的是文章被接受，而不是审稿质量。不满意的作者对审稿人会有一些负面看法：挑剔、草率、武断、教条、肤浅、傲慢、不公正、忌妒、自私自利。但是，一份中肯的、深入的、表达清楚的评审意见，能够提高稿件的科学性和易读性，能够增加作者的知识，提高作者从事和报道科学研究的能力。审稿时应该对作者及其工作充满敬意，要耐心、客观公正地阅读，对新观点新方法持开放态度，但又不能“放水”。提出的意见要有正当理由，观点表达清楚，让人看得懂；要提出明确的建议（但不一定明确是接受或拒绝）。最后，审稿当然需要时间。如果只读一遍，恐怕会错失重要的深入看法。在提出全面的、明确的观点之前，常常需要反复斟酌。不同稿件需要的时间可能不同，有的3个小时也不一定够。审稿给审稿人带来的好处，已如前述。但审稿肯定会与自己的工作、甚至生活发生冲突，看病、、科研、申请课题、休假等等，不一而足。
一些英文审稿意见的模板 好东西 原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博 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，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！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majorrevision ，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
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 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:
完美格式整理版 一些英文审稿意见的模板 最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio? 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem
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. 2. 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）
一些英文审稿意见的模板 最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。呵呵 网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1、目标和结果不清晰。 It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. 2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。 In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究设计的rationale: Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design. 4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨： The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation. 5、对hypothesis的清晰界定： A hypothesis needs to be presented。 6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念： What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio？ 7、对研究问题的定义： Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear, write one section to define the problem 8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review: The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel. 9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work,
回复审稿意见,模板 篇一：SCI 审稿意见回复范文 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.
_______________________________________ The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows: 1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research. 2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area. 3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word "research". 4. On Section 1: · This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed. · Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration. · A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful. 5. On Section 2: · Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former. · Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and "2" is missed. · The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms. 6. On Sections 3 and 4: The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs. 7. On Section 5: · The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods. · In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using