论文根据审稿意见修改后如何给编辑回信

如何回复审稿人意见尊敬的审稿人：感谢您对于我们研究论文的审阅和给出的宝贵意见。

在您的指导下，我们对您提出的问题和建议进行了仔细的考虑和分析，并且我们在此信中将详细回复您的意见，并阐明我们所作出的修改。

首先，我们非常感谢您对于我们研究论文的肯定和鼓励。

您提到的研究方法和数据选择的合理性，确实是我们在该研究中进行的充分思考和讨论的结果。

我们充分尊重您对于方法和数据的支持，并且我们已经在文中详细说明了我们的选择原因和方法的适应性，以更好地支持我们的研究结论。

关于您指出的论文中存在的问题和改进的建议，我们作出以下回应：1.您提到我们的文献综述不够全面和深入，我们完全认同您的观点，并且我们已经对文献综述进行了进一步的补充和修订。

我们添加了更多相关的研究文献，并且我们在文中对于每篇文献进行了更详细的分析和讨论，以更好地评估前人的研究成果和我们的工作在其中的贡献。

2.您对于我们的数据分析过程提出的一些建议，我们衷心感激并且已经进行了一些修改。

我们优化了数据清洗和处理的方法，以确保数据的准确性和可靠性。

此外，我们重新进行了一些统计方法的选择，并且对于结果进行了更详细的分析和解释，以提高我们研究的可解释性和可靠性。

3.您对于我们的结论进行的评价和提供的修改建议，我们在此表示感谢。

您指出的一些漏洞和不完整之处，我们已经确认，并且进行了相应的修改和补充。

我们重新修改了结论部分，提供了更全面和准确的结论，以确保我们的结论能够更好地支持我们的研究问题和目标。

最后，我们再次感谢您对于我们研究论文的仔细审阅和提供的宝贵意见。

您的指导对于我们的研究工作有着重要的贡献，并且我们充分尊重您的专业知识和建议。

我们已经在论文中进行了相应的修改和完善，并且我们确信这些改进将进一步提高我们研究的质量和可靠性。

再次感谢您的审阅和指导，期待能够得到您进一步的支持和指导。

谨启。

sci给编辑的回信模板示例1:亲爱的编辑，我希望这封信能够表达我对于投稿的期望以及对于SCI杂志的重视。

我非常感谢您的评审和研究人员为我的研究工作所做出的努力和宝贵意见。

在前一次评审的基础上，我已经根据您的建议对论文进行了进一步的修改和完善。

首先，我重点解决了您对于论文结构和逻辑连贯性的担忧。

我重新组织了研究材料，并对论文进行了全面的重写。

我相信这些改进能够使读者更加清楚地理解我的研究目的、方法和结果。

此外，在您的建议下，我还对实验数据进行了更详细的分析和解释。

我将这些结果与相关文献加以对比和讨论，以支持我的观点和结论。

我相信这些变动将有助于提升论文的质量和学术价值。

对于那些在论文中存在的缺陷和不足，我也做出了一些必要的修正。

我重新审视了排版、语法和拼写错误，并确保使用了正确的引文格式。

此外，我还与合著作者进行了讨论，对于一些技术细节进行了澄清，以避免引起读者的困惑。

在这封回信中，我希望能够得到您的最终决定以及下一步的指导。

我深知SCI杂志对于优质研究的要求极高，因此我竭尽全力对论文进行了改进。

我真诚地希望我的努力能够得到认可，并有机会在您的杂志上发表。

再次感谢您对论文的评审和宝贵意见。

我期待着您的回复，并愿意进行进一步的修改和调整，以便使论文更适合您的杂志。

谢谢您的时间和耐心。

最诚挚的问候，[您的姓名]示例2:尊敬的编辑，感谢贵刊对我所提交的稿件的关注并提供意见和建议。

我非常感激能获得专业编辑的批评和指导，这对于我来说是一个宝贵的机会来提高我的写作技巧和学术水平。

根据您的指导，我已经对我的文章进行了修改和改进。

我努力克服了您所指出的问题，并在文章中作出了必要的调整。

我衷心希望这些修改能够使我的文章更具有学术价值，以及更符合贵刊的发表标准。

以下是我对您提出的主要问题的回答和我的修改说明：1. 问题一：缺乏清晰的问题陈述和研究目的。

修改措施：在文章的开头重新阐述了研究问题，并明确了研究目的。

这样可以帮助读者更好地了解文章的主要焦点。

回复审稿人意见模板sci编辑同学，我已经仔细阅读了您提交的审稿意见，并根据您的建议进行了相应的修改。

以下是我对每一条审稿意见的回复和相应的修改情况。

意见一：在文章的引言部分，需要更清晰地阐述研究的目的和意义。

回复：非常感谢您的指导意见。

在经过修改后，我在引言部分进一步明确了本研究的目的和意义，以便读者更好地理解研究的背景和重要性。

意见二：方法部分应该更详细地描述实验设计和数据处理。

回复：非常感谢您的建议。

我已经对方法部分进行了进一步的修改，增加了关于实验设计和数据处理的详细描述，以确保读者能够更好地理解研究的过程和数据的处理方法。

意见三：结果部分应提供更多的统计分析和图表，以更好地支持研究结果的可靠性。

回复：感谢您对结果部分的关注。

根据您的建议，我已经增加了更多的统计分析和图表，以更全面地展示研究结果的可靠性。

意见四：在讨论部分，需要进一步解释和解读研究结果，并与现有的文献进行比较和讨论。

回复：非常感谢您的指导意见。

我已经对讨论部分进行了修改，进一步解释和解读了研究结果，并与现有的文献进行了比较和讨论，以提供更深入的分析和解释。

意见五：在结论部分，需要对研究的局限性进行说明。

回复：感谢您对结论部分的指导。

在经过修改后，我已经在结论部分对研究的局限性进行了明确的说明，以确保读者了解到我们研究的限制和潜在的改进方向。

针对您给出的审稿意见，我认真对待并进行了相应的修改，以确保文章更加完善和准确。

再次感谢您花费时间仔细审阅我的稿件，并给予宝贵的指导意见。

我非常感激您对这项研究的关注和支持。

祝好，[您的名字]。

审稿意见修改回复
一、表示感谢
哎呀，审稿老师呀，看到您的审稿意见啦，真的特别感谢您这么认真地看我的稿子呢。

您给的这些意见对我来说就像是宝藏一样，能让我的文章变得更好。

二、针对意见的回应
1. 关于内容部分的意见
您说有部分内容表述不够清晰，我也发现这个问题啦。

就像我在解释那个概念的时候，可能用了一些比较复杂的句子，我现在已经重新写了，用特别直白的话来说，就像和朋友聊天一样解释这个概念，让读者一看就懂。

您提到有些例子有点老套，我也觉得是呢。

所以我就到处找新的例子，找的时候可费劲啦，不过最后还是找到了一些特别有趣又新鲜的例子，把之前的老例子都替换掉啦。

2. 关于格式方面的意见
您说我的段落排版有点乱，我自己看了看，确实是这样。

我就重新调整了一下段落，让每个段落的主题都更明确，就像给每个段落都穿上了整齐的衣服一样。

对于引用部分的格式，我之前可能没太注意，现在按照要求都规范好啦，还仔细核对了引用的文献，确保没有错误。

三、整体的改进方向
我知道我的文章还有很多需要改进的地方呢。

我会继续努力的，在以后写文章的时候也会更加注意这些问题。

我会让文章的逻辑更加清晰，内容更加丰富有趣，就像把文章打造成一个充满惊喜的小世界一样。

而且我也会多参考一些优秀的文章，学习人家的写作方法，争取让自己的写作水平蹭蹭往上涨。

再次感谢审稿老师您的宝贵意见哦。

论文根据审稿意见修改后如何给编辑回信论文根据审稿意见修改后如何给编辑回信回信示例Dear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章编号). 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 resp onds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: xxxxxx2. Respons e to comment: (…...简要列出意见……)Response: xxxxxx……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’ssuggestion.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:同上述Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “……”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deletedWe 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 suggestion.Best regards,xx, xx and xx给编辑回信常用语1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that –One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefull y and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3. Thank you for your letter of –and for the referee’s comments concerning ourm anuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You wil l see that our original findings are confirmed.5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript.7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.11. I f eel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature of the cells, we consider it essential.15. The running title has been changed to “”.16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake of isotope and assaying hexokinase.17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful to the referees for pointing out their error.18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those originally submitted and to which a scale has been added.20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redrawn Figure 3 and 4.21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been added to the text and Reference section. These are:22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of thereferees concerning improvement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for suggesting how to improve our paper.25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our doing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees。

如何回复审稿人的意见？（附回信模版）对于学术人来说，论文写作和投稿可谓是非常重要的事了。

我们对待文章就像对待自己的孩子一样，从孕育到落地再到成长，每一个时期都注入了作者大量的心血和时间。

从最初的论文写作到最终的投稿发表，最令人欣喜的莫过于直接接收或者审稿人给出了小修的意见，而最令人伤神的莫过于直接拒稿或者大修重新投稿。

编辑意见我们先来看看一般来说，编辑意见分为哪几种情况呢？通常来说，有以下几点：1. 直接接收除非你是学术界的大牛，除非你的论文是无可挑剔，除非你是「锦鲤」，一般而言，这种情况很少存在，尤其是对于影响因子比较高的期刊，文章不退修个几稿，都不好意思说自己是个负责任的好期刊。

2. 直接拒稿由于论文的选题方向不符合、由于论文的数据选择有问题，由于论文的语言表述不恰当等等原因，期刊直接拒稿，这对于作者来说莫过于是最大的打击。

3. 给出修改意见给出修改意见分为小修和大修。

小修说明得到了审稿人和编辑的肯定，可能会让改一些格式、修正一些语法等，修改比较简单，只要认真对待你就等着交版面费吧。

大修说明文章需要伤筋动骨，可能需要补充实验或理论证明，大修比较困难，尤其是一些审稿人意见让你无从下手不知所措。

所以，被毙的风险很大。

4. 重新投稿比大修要严重一些，说明你的文章实在是存在很多很关键性的问题，需要打乱重新组稿，编辑老师比较仁慈想再给你一次重新投稿的机会，但这个机会很渺茫。

如何应对审稿人意见对于给出审稿人修改意见的文章而言，我们需要怎么回复呢？1. 态度端正、礼貌谦和一篇文章从写作到见刊，辛苦付出的除了作者之外，还有审稿人编辑老师等。

审稿人也是需要花费很长的时间去阅读你的文章，甚至是查阅资料之后对你的文章做出评论并给出审稿意见。

如果文章存在的问题比较多，那么审稿人的修改意见有可能就有几千字之多，由此可见审稿人对你的文章也付出了很多。

所以，在回复审稿人意见时要写几句感谢的话，感谢审稿专家的专业意见，感谢编辑部的辛勤付出。

面对sci论文修改意见该如何回信
面对sci论文修改意见该如何回信
Sci论文修改是sci论文发表流程中几乎必经的一步，小编几乎没听说过没有修改就直接被接收的文章，那么，收到修改意见之后我们该如何回信呢？
首先，我们的回信一定要礼貌，无论你的文章被审稿人和编辑把你的文章批得多么一无是处，你都不能表露出不满，相反，你要对他们的辛勤工作表示诚挚的谢意，要知道sci论文期刊的审稿人几乎都是义务劳动，没有报酬的在给你审稿，他们如此辛苦地审稿，理所应当希望得到作者的肯定和感谢，大家都是高文化水平的人，对人家的共走表示感谢是基本的尊重，但是又很多sci论文作者在回复编辑和审稿人时只顾着反驳修改意见，而忘记了这种基本的尊重，这是万万不可的，如果你惹得编辑或者审稿人不爽，你觉得最后是谁比较吃亏呢？因此我们在回信时不管是赞成修改意见还是有所反驳，都要有礼貌。

其次，是回信的格式问题，要注意在开头写上文章的基本信息，比如manuscript tracking number, title, author 等。

总之，在回复sci论文修改意见时一定要注意从审稿人的角度看看这封信写得好不好，不能掉以轻心，如果你的文章处于接收也可拒绝也可的地步，那修回信的分量是很大的。

中文审稿意见回复格式
以下是一个示例的中文审稿意见回复格式，供参考：
尊敬的编辑：
感谢您给予我关于XXX论文的审稿机会，我非常珍视这次机会，并对您的审稿意见表示由衷的感谢。

以下是针对您的审稿意见的具体回应：
1.针对审稿意见一：
问题描述：（简要概述审稿意见一中的问题）
回应与解释：（详细解释您对这一问题的看法和处理方式，可以包括
您对问题的理解、研究方法的改进、数据分析和解释等方面的回应）修改后的内容：（如果需要修改，可以在此处描述修改的内容和修改
原因）
2.针对审稿意见二：
问题描述：（简要概述审稿意见二中的问题）
回应与解释：（详细解释您对这一问题的看法和处理方式，可以包括
您对问题的理解、研究设计的改进、文献综述和讨论等方面的回应）修改后的内容：（如果需要修改，可以在此处描述修改的内容和修改
原因）
3.针对审稿意见三：
问题描述：（简要概述审稿意见三中的问题）
回应与解释：（详细解释您对这一问题的看法和处理方式，可以包括
您对问题的理解、实验方法的改进、结果和讨论等方面的回应）
修改后的内容：（如果需要修改，可以在此处描述修改的内容和修改原因）
4.其他需要说明的问题或补充信息：
（如果有其他需要补充或说明的问题，可以在此进行回应和解释）最后，我再次感谢您对我的论文的审稿意见和建议。

我将认真修改和完善论文，并希望能够在您的帮助下顺利发表。

如果您还有其他问题或建议，欢迎随时与我联系。

此致
敬礼！
XXX（作者姓名）。

尊敬的编辑，您好！感谢您对我们文章《可生物降解多肽基因载体的构建与体外评价》（编号20160233）的关注。

根据审稿人提出的问题我们对文章进行了认真的修改，现将修改情况说明如下：一．对第一审稿人提出问题的回复问题：中文摘要用半胱氨酸合成不同交联度的硫辛酸修饰的载体，通过CCK-8法测定回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

我们已对摘要进行修改精炼，见文中摘要红色字部分。

问题：英文摘要需要认真修改，大小写，语法等回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

我们已对英文摘要进行认真修改，并注意语法和大小写的错误。

见英文摘要红色字部分。

问题：全文亦较多文字不通之处，如“当N/P=40时，LHR组与LHRss3具有统计学意义”。

回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

文字不通处已修改，见红色字部分：前言第一段第二行；1.8部分第三行；问题：图4 A 文字与图内容不符回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

我们已将图4A稳转部分改为flow cytometry figures，见2.4部分图4A红色字部分，此流式指数与图4B均在N/P40条件下进行。

第二审稿人一审意见：问题：前言建议适当精简；回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

我们已按照要求对摘要进行修改，见摘要红色字部分。

问题：具体方法中涉及到的仪器，建议统一放在1.1部分；回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

我们已按照建议将方法中涉及到的仪器统一放在1.1部分，见1.1部分第1-3行的红色字部分。

问题：LHRss多肽合成中，除了半胱氨酸采用不同摩尔分数外，（L-R6）（RRRRRR）和H3（HHH）肽及LA的量分别是多少？回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

（L-R6）（RRRRRR）和H3（HHH）1：1通过固相合成法连接后继续以固相合成法在组氨酸的末端氨基连接上LA，整体采用按分子量1554.88与半胱氨酸按照摩尔比进行投料。

问题：采用两种质粒（pEGFP或pGL3）进行转染研究，但在凝胶阻滞电泳研究中只考察了一种质粒，那么另外一种质粒是否也是相同的N/P？回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。

回复论文审稿意见的经验和技巧学术论文需要经过同行评议（审稿），才能在正规的学术刊物发表。

经过审稿，如果论文没有被直接“枪毙”，那作者就得按照审稿人的意见修改论文，再把论文发回给刊物编辑。

老师平时工作很忙，修改论文和写答辩信（回复审稿意见）的任务就落在研究生身上。

但问题是，很多研究生不擅长写答辩信。

以下是发表过160多篇科研论文、为100多个学术刊物审过近600篇论文的复旦教授告诉你的写回复信的奥妙。

逐条回复审稿意见假设一篇论文有三个审稿人，那么作者应该按照审稿人1、审稿人2、审稿人3的顺序，依次回答审稿人的意见。

针对每一个审稿人的意见，要按照“一段意见、一段回答”的形式，逐条回答。

不要把几个审稿人的几条意见用自己的话归纳总结，再回答。

这是因为，作者把不同审稿人的意见“综合”在一起，难免有自己的主观取舍，有“避重就轻”之嫌。

编辑读到答辩信时，不清楚作者是否把审稿人的所有意见都考虑到并回答了。

逐条回复时，要简短地向审稿人解释，并说：已经在第几页第几段进行修改，在文中已经用红色标出修改的部分。

作者还需要在答辩信中重现修改的段落和句子（新增或者修改的内容用红色标出），甚至给出有变动的图表。

这样，“一本账很清”，审稿人看完答辩信，马上就能向编辑建议接收该论文，而不必重新审读文稿。

但问题是，很多“菜鸟”费了好大的劲儿向审稿人解释，既没有说清楚自己根据审稿意见补充了什么实验，也没有说清楚这些修改体现在第几页、第几段。

这就使审稿人怀疑作者没有吸取审稿意见，只是在搪塞。

如果作者进行了有效的修改，那为什么不大大方方地说出在哪里进行了修改呢？如果有些补充的数据不方便放在论文的正文，那么可以作为“支撑信息”发给编辑。

论文正式发表时，这些“支撑信息”会作为论文的附件，放在出版社的网上。

还有的作者长篇大论地向审稿人解释，并把修改过的段落附上，但长篇解释和新增段落的内容几乎一样，这就没有必要了。

逐条回复要务实、干脆利落，要不惊不乍，而不要让编辑觉得“问题很大”以至于作者需要用很大的篇幅来解释问题。

论文修改回复样板
修改回复
尊敬的审稿人与编辑：
您们好！
首先非常感谢您能在百忙之中抽出时间来阅读和修改我的文章，感谢你们提出的宝贵建议，你们针对我论文的结构、内容、研究方法、结果等进行了全方面的斧正，这将对提高我的论文质量起着非常重要的作用。

我已经仔细研读了审稿人的意见，并根据建议，认真逐条对论文进行如下修改：
1.对中英文摘要进行了提炼，使语言更加精炼；
2.补充了英文题目、作者姓名和单位；
3.论文对ICU内鲍曼不动杆菌的耐药性因素进行了全面分析，着重分析了
临床抗菌药物的使用情况与耐药菌株产生的关系，并根据统计分析为临
床合理用药提出了建议；
4.对论文正文进行了进一步提炼、浓缩，目前文章正文已压缩致3100个
字左右；
5.讨论部分进行了提炼，删去了重复内容；
6.进一步核查了参考文献；
7.本论文无基金项目；
8.按要求完善了作者及通讯作者简介；
最后，再次对您的指导表示感谢，也感谢您能对我修改后的论文再一次审阅、修正，希望在您的指导帮助下我能完成一篇优秀的论文，诚恳希望我的论文能在贵刊发表。

此致
敬礼！。

审稿意见回复信模板-回复[审稿意见回复信模板]尊敬的编辑/审稿人，感谢您对我们的文章提供审稿意见。

我们非常感谢您对我们的工作提出的宝贵建议，并且我们对您的高度评价感到非常满意。

根据您的意见，我们对文章做出了相应的修改和改进。

下面是对每个意见的详细回复。

1. 意见一：在文章中，我们缺乏对相关文献的引用和参考。

建议增加引用和参考的论文数量和种类，以加强文章的可信度和研究基础。

回复：非常感谢您的建议。

我们认可您的观点，并已在文章中增加了相关文献的引用和参考。

我们研究了更多的文献，并引用了来自不同领域和角度的研究结果，以增强我们的立论基础和可信度。

这次修改后，文章的参考文献数量和种类得到了显著的提高，我们相信这样做能更好地支持我们的观点。

2. 意见二：文章的结构和逻辑需要更清晰。

建议对段落进行重组和优化，使其更连贯和易于阅读。

回复：非常感谢您对文章结构和逻辑的指导。

我们重新整理了段落，并进行了优化，以提高文章的连贯性和易读性。

我们修订了段落之间的过渡句，使得文章的结构更加清晰和流畅。

此外，我们还添加了更多的副标题，以帮助读者更好地理解文章的脉络和内容。

希望这些修改能满足您对结构和逻辑的要求。

3. 意见三：在方法和实验部分，我们建议提供更多的细节，以便读者能够重现研究。

回复：非常感谢您的意见。

我们对方法和实验部分进行了详细的修改和补充，以便读者能够更好地理解和重现我们的研究。

我们添加了更多的实验细节，包括实验设备、实验条件和实验过程等方面的信息。

我们还提供了相关数据和结果的分析方法，以便读者能够更准确地理解我们的实验结果。

我们相信这些修改将使读者能够更好地理解我们的研究过程和结果。

4. 意见四：文章中存在一些语法和拼写错误，建议重新审查和修改。

回复：非常感谢您指出文章中的语法和拼写错误。

我们对文章进行了仔细的审查和修改，以确保语法和拼写的准确性。

我们使用了专业的校对软件和工具，并请专业的编辑进行了最后的审查。

审稿人意见回复模板
尊敬的审稿人：
非常感谢您对我们稿件的审稿意见和建议。

对于您提到的问题，我们已经进行了仔细的查看和分析，并将根据您的意见对稿件进行修正和改进。

以下是我们对您提到的具体问题的回复：
1. 问题1：请进一步解释实验方法和结果的相关细节。

回复：非常感谢您的建议，我们将对实验方法和结果进行更
详细的描述，以便读者更好地理解我们的研究。

2. 问题2：请提供更多支持您的结论的证据。

回复：非常感谢您的意见，我们将采取措施，进一步提供支
持我们结论的数据和实验证据，以加强论文的可信度。

3. 问题3：请检查论文的语法和拼写错误。

回复：感谢您指出此类问题，我们会仔细检查论文中的语法
和拼写错误，并进行必要的修正。

再次感谢您的审稿意见和建议。

我们会认真对待每一条意见，并对稿件进行修改，以改进我们的研究质量和论文内容。

谢谢您对我们稿件的关注与支持！
此致
作者名字。

审稿人意见回复模板
尊敬的审稿人，
首先，我们衷心感谢您对我们的稿件提出宝贵的意见和建议。

您的指导对我们的研究和论文的完善非常重要。

以下是我们对您提出的意见的回复：
1. 意见一：[在此处回复审稿人的意见]
我们接受您的意见，并在论文中进行了相应的修改。

我们已经对论文中存在的错误和不清晰之处进行了修正和澄清。

我们相信这些修改将有助于提高论文的质量和准确性。

2. 意见二：[在此处回复审稿人的意见]
我们衷心感谢您对我们的研究方法和实验设计提出的宝贵建议。

我们已经根据您的建议进行了修改，并在论文中详细说明了我们的方法和实验设计。

这些修改将有助于增加我们研究的可信度和可重复性。

3. 意见三：[在此处回复审稿人的意见]
我们真诚感谢您对我们研究的限制和不足之处的指出。

我们已经根据你的建议在讨论部分进一步讨论了这些限制，并提出了未来可能的研究方向。

我们相信这些修改将对进一步完善我们的研究起到积极的作用。

最后，再次感谢您对我们的稿件提出的意见和建议。

您的专业知识和经验对我们论文的提升起到了重要的作用。

我们非常重视您的意见，并认真对待每一条建议。

如果您对我们的修改和回复有任何疑问或需要进一步的解释，请随时告知，我们将尽力满足您的要求。

再次感谢您的审稿费和宝贵时间！
祝好！
此致，
[您的名字]。

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 assignmentTo reviewer#11.The author should add a few review articles on ghrelin for readers in theIntroduction.We added two reviews in our revised manuscript.2.The increase in ghrelin levels do not necessary indicate that weight loss in diseaseis 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 ghrelinlevels(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 consensusat 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 tostarvation. But the “inactive”isoform has other activities like anti-proliferative activity on tumor cell lines as described in the manuscript.To reviewer#2Major comments1.Earlier studies have shown that circulating ghrelin level is increased inunderweight 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 withplasma 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 ofplasma 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 comments1.Circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm. Therefore, the authorsshould 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. Soour 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 withthat 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#31.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.AbstractConclusion: “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 commentconcering 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 behelpful 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 mostoften 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 compositionPage 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)StatisticalA 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. Ifthese 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.DiscussionPage 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.ReferenceAs 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: 7742. 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: 22064. 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: 20345. 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: 14606. 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 Disord2001; 25: 2737. 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。

写SCI论文修改后回复信的实用方法-经验之谈写SCI论文修改后回复信的实用方法当你拿到SCI论文修改的回信时，恭喜你，说明你已经一只脚迈进了这个期刊的大门。

但是，这时候不要高兴太早。

给你机会对SCI 文章进行修改，一是说明你的SCI论文有被录用的机会，二是说明你的SCI论文还有不足之处。

在你的SCI论文的审稿意见中，也许有好几个专家的审稿意见，也许这些审稿意见很难对付。

但是，为了SCI 论文能被杂志接收，你不得不对审稿人的意见作出很好的答复。

那么，如何才能出色地回复审稿人对你SCI论文的修改意见呢？这里有三大原则需要遵守：1.完整全面。

对于审稿人对你SCI文章提出的每一条意见或者建议，都要一一作出回应，无论说得对还是不对，千万不要遗漏了审稿人的问题或建议。

这样会让审稿人觉得他的意见被你重视了，你的态度是认真诚恳的，另外一方面，万一遗漏的那个问题对你的SCI论文修改确实有很大帮助呢。

2.礼貌谦虚。

从回复信的开头到结尾，都要让审稿人觉得你的态度是礼貌的、谦虚的。

这么做会大大提高你的SCI论文的录取率。

比如开头，“Dear Editor”，这里的“Editor”可以换成编辑的名字，例如“Dear Dr. Yan”。

结尾来句客套话，比如“Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions”。

在回答审稿人的问题时，态度要诚恳谦虚一点，可以用上这样一些句子：“We are very sorry for our incorrect wr iting,……”，“The referee is right to point out …,yet”等等。

3.有理有据。

在回答审稿人的问题时，要做到有理有据，这样才能说服审稿人。

比如，一些审稿人认为你SCI论文里的结果需要进一步的实验来论证，而你没有办法在补充实验了，这个时候你可以采取两种措施：一是把这个作为“Limitation”在讨论部分提出来，说我们的文章确实有些不足之处，但是后续会补充实验来验证的；二是可以列举一些已经发表的、类似的SCI文献来说明别人也有这么做的。

给编辑修改意见的回信
尊敬的编辑：
非常感谢您给予我的文章以关注和审阅。

在阅读您的修改意见后，我对于您提出的建议深表感激，并且我将对您的建议进行认真
的思考和修改。

首先，我要感谢您对于文章结构和逻辑的指导。

您提到的关于
段落之间过渡不够流畅的问题确实存在，我会重新审视文章的结构，以确保整体的逻辑性和连贯性。

其次，您提到的关于语言表达的问题也是我需要重点关注的地方。

我会重新审视每一个词语和句子，以确保表达清晰、准确，同
时也会尽量运用更生动、具体的词语和表达方式，使文章更具吸引
力和说服力。

最后，您对于论据的支持和论证的深入也给了我很大的启发。

我会加强对于论据的搜集和论证的深入，以使得文章更具有可信度
和说服力。

再次感谢您对于我的文章的指导和修改意见，我会认真对待并尽快进行修改。

希望在您的指导下，我的文章能够得到更大的提升和改善。

谢谢您的耐心指导！
此致。

敬礼。

[您的名字]。

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 assignmentTo reviewer#11.The author should add a few review articles on ghrelin for readers in theIntroduction.We added two reviews in our revised manuscript.2.The increase in ghrelin levels do not necessary indicate that weight loss in diseaseis 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 ghrelinlevels(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 consensusat 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 tostarvation. But the “inactive”isoform has other activities like anti-proliferative activity on tumor cell lines as described in the manuscript.To reviewer#2Major comments1.Earlier studies have shown that circulating ghrelin level is increased inunderweight 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 withplasma 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 ofplasma 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 comments1.Circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm. Therefore, the authorsshould 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. Soour 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 withthat 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#31.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.AbstractConclusion: “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 commentconcering 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 behelpful 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 mostoften 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 compositionPage 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)StatisticalA 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. Ifthese 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.DiscussionPage 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.ReferenceAs 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: 7742. 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: 22064. 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: 20345. 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: 14606. 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 Disord2001; 25: 2737. 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。