回复审稿意见,模板

回复审稿意见,模板
回复审稿意见,模板

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.

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:

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., XX)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)

>>>>>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 do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@ Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences

作者回复信原稿:

Dear Dr. Bahl,

I’m (注:正式信函不要简写)very appreciate (注:不适合作为给编辑回信的开始,同时有语法错误)for your comments and suggestions.

I (注:实际上是学生做的)have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again (注:要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作). Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices (注:用词错误)were calculated(注:用词不当). Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere (注:语法错误)measured by RT-PCR.

I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.

Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: (注:可附在给编辑的回复信后)

Reviewer #1:

XXXXX

Reviewer #2:

XXXXX

Editors note and suggestions:

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English

Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth(注:多处语法错误).

Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.

Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative(注:语法错误).

The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.

Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer (注:不具体). Introduction:

some sentences can be made less passive.

Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English (注:语法错误,句子不通顺).

The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors

Answer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors (注:不必道歉,按建议修改即可). I have carefully corrected them.

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., XX) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)

Answer: I changed the style of references.

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.

Answer: (注:作者请编辑公司帮回答)

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.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).

I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements (注:一般不是延误或人为失误,不必轻易道歉,按建议修改即可). Your comments and suggestions really helped

me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.

If there’s (注:正式信函不要简写)any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear (注:语法错

误)from you.

Yours Sincerely

Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)

建议修改稿:

Dear Dr. Bahl,

Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.

As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.

We have revised the manuscript, according to the

comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript (正常情况最好表明修改处).

The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.

I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards,

Yours Sincerely

Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)

Replies to Reviewers and Editor

First of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.

Replies to Reviewer #1:

Xxxxx (略)

Replies to Reviewer #2:

Xxxxx (略)

Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary English

Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.

篇二:教你审稿意见回复信怎么写

教你审稿意见回复信怎么写

来源:医学论文——达晋医学编译

达晋医学编译小编知道大多数的稿件在被期刊接受前需要经历至少一次修稿,作者在收到大修或小修的决定后,必须根据审稿意见修改论文,然后将修改稿重新递交给期刊,同时附上逐点回复,在返还修改稿的时候,还需要递交cover letter,这封信通常称为 response letter(回复信)或 rebuttal letter(反驳信)。

写封好的修回信(response letter,rebuttal letter)很重要,一般有两种写法:

1. 单独写回复信,然后将给同行评审的逐点回复附

加在后

2. 将反驳信分成两部分,第一部分写给期刊编辑,第二部分包含给评审意见的详尽回复。

信的开头要提供论文题目和投稿编号,用一小段篇幅感谢审稿人的宝贵时间与贡献,谢谢他们提供的意见,这些肯定能帮助改善论文云云,从感谢开始的修回信能让整封信传达正面的信息。

如果打算把逐点回复分开来放,可以简短列出根据评审意见进行的主要修改是哪些,然后说明会将逐点回复另外附加;如果是将逐点回复放在信里,可以说回复在后。

回复审稿意见有时候是艰难的任务,尤其是意见又多又长的时候,以下是撰写回复信 / 反驳信该注意的事项:

1. 不要漏掉任何期刊编辑或审稿人提出的意见:将所有的意见完全复制到信里面,然后在每一点意见后面提供清楚详细的回复,一定要确认编辑和审稿人所有提出的点都回复了,即使有不同意或是没有修改的点,也要说明原因。

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

3. 分类审稿意见:如果意见很多,可以试着将它们进行分类,例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一

组等等,如果将意见进行分组,记得在信里提及“I have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my responses”。

4. 如果评审意见是以段落方式呈现,将它们拆成点列式:如果评审员的意见是长长的段落,可以将之分离成点各别回应,如果不确定某项意见的意思,可以先解释自己对该意见的理解,然后再进行回复。

5. 如果觉得评审员有所误解,可以礼貌地厘清:同行评审员通常是领域内的专家,如

果认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落,有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚,这种情况下,可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明,可以这么写“I am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript. I should have explained that (详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。

6. 如果无法处理任何意见,记得说明原因:如果有无法处理的意见,比如说审稿人要求提供更多数据或是补做实验,而你认为没有必要,还是要说明为什么不做,避免像是经费不够或是没有时间这种私人理由,也不要表现出负面的态度,回复中要表现出对意见的重视和尊重,首先感谢评

审员的深度分析和实用的意见,然后说明无法完全同意审稿意见,回答必须要清楚有逻辑并有证据支持。

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

8. 回复语调必须尊重有礼:请记住,审稿人花费了大把的时间评估论文,即使有些意见不是那么正面,也不要认为审稿人是在针对自己,审稿人评论的是工作,而不是个人,他们的意见为你的工作带来附加价值,或有你认为不好或是无理的意见,回复的时候语调要维持尊重有礼。有时候审稿意见可能会互相冲突,但记住他们都会看修回信,所以对每一位审稿人都要有礼貌,信的语调是非常重要的。

9. 做出适当的总结:注意反驳信的结尾,像“Since all the corrections have been made, we hope the manuscript will now be accepted without any further changes”这样的结尾可能会过于自负,如果要直接又不失礼,可以这么说:We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have,

这样的结尾正式有礼也表达了愿意在必要的情况下进行更多修改的意愿。

篇三:SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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: ×××

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 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 hav

SCI 回复整理

暑假中了2篇SCI文章,影响因子都在IF=1.5-2.0之间。其实,在此之前,本人已经发表了若干SCI,而且已经是两个期刊的Reviewer。但尽管如此,随着文章积累越多,对SCI写作的认识也有所熟悉和深入。下面谈谈一些体会,与大家分享。 第一篇:去年12月份投稿,7月份返回意见。结论是:“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”实际上,这个结论已经非常好了。我看了以下审稿意见,然后就逐条的进行了Response。其中Response letter的格式我是参考了我审稿过的一篇德国学者的回复模式(我认为非常好)。但是,在审稿意见中,有一条意见要我对实验过程做一描述。我认为完全没有必要,所以没有改此项。很快,R1版文件被主编审回。我认为应该“Complete Accept”了,但意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”不出所料,主编的意见就是R1中没有改的那条,而且比较客气,认为“Probably the authors did not notice this requirement. Howev er, this issue is critical: to judge the value of the reported methodological development;”没有办法,我又认真对意见进行了修改。R2版文件我认为没有问题了,就等Accept了。 可是R2返回后,主编的意见还是意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”这次一看,原来意见是“The paper requires careful editing for use of English.”我想应该不会啊。我又仔细审查了Text,结果还是发现了几个不应该的拼写错误。我的Word的拼写可能出问题了,前几次竟然没有发现。这次,我不敢大意了,俗话云:事不过三。如果再有问题,主编的大斧可能就来了。于是,我认真的检查了全文,写了Resonse letter: Dear the Editors and reviewers: We appreciate again your valuable comments very much, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. According to the comments, we have revised our paper as follows: 1)Comment s: "…….. ." According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have checked again our spelling and rewriten or modified a number of expressions in the abstract, text, figures, and tables. Thanks ***, a reviewer of International Journal of ****, for his kind help on the text modifications(这是我表示诚意,特意加上去的). Especially, in the Acknowledgement, we added our thanks for anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our present paper. 果然,R3版文件当天就被主编接受了。意见:“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the reviewers have accepted your paper for publication.The proofs will be sent to you within three months of receipt of this email.” 通过上面的来回反复,我发现SCI回复意见一定要态度认真,逐条回复。对于中国作者,及时主编不说,也要对English进行认真核对,认真决定一切! 这次,我真的学了很多经验教训。就在我改动之间,我又准备了另外一篇,而且把这篇Accept 的文章也引用上了。 第二篇:这次准备的非常充分,尤其是语法方面画了大量功夫,内容也比较新。就是把实验数据反过来了。不是直接报数据,而是先给了模型,而后用实验去验证。我感到满意的是Introduction。这里,我充分参考了木虫上Fudanmazhen的经验,尽量在“讲故事,而不是讲历史”。结果,7月29日投出,8月5日主编返回意见:直接接受,而且说无需任何进一步改动。目前,此篇文章已经上网了。与此同时,主编还发给我一篇西班牙作者的文章,让我当Reviewer。我肯定欣然接受了。因此,我本来就是这个期刊的审稿人。当然,这是我SCI运气最好的一次,估计也是最后一次了,因为直接接受的情形确实很少,我也不奢望每篇文章都这样,除非自己当主编。但是,通过这个假期的SCI较量,

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

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.

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集

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 ……...

回答SCI审稿人的方法

如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人尤为重要。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

审稿意见回复模板,中文

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答复审稿人的回信技巧

SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧 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

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全

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 ……...

(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板

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.

SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例

SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例.txt精神失常的疯子不可怕,可怕的是精神正常的疯子!附1:SCI扩展版和SCI核心版收录期刊的区别 SCI扩展版(以下简称SCIE)和SCI核心版(以下简称SCI)收录期刊还是有区别的,SCI期刊论文全部被SCI收录,SCIE期刊论文只是部分被SCI收录,这就是有的SCIE期刊一年有几百篇论文,却只有几十篇甚至十几篇论文被SCI收录的原因。具体到SCIE期刊上的一篇论文能否被SCI收录,还是要看美国ISI发布的报告,现在科技部信息研究所也公布这一报告,很多图书馆的SCI检索机构也可以查。 不过在国内,很多单位都把SCI期刊论文和SCIE期刊论文一视同仁,只要发表在SCI期刊或SCIE期刊上,该论文都当作SCI收录,这是管理者的无能抑或无为就不得而知了。但就我们单位而言(国内TOP10高校),这两者还是区别对待的,论文是否SCI收录还是看CISI的报告或SCI检索机构的证 附2:[精华]如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(1) 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避,说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用,并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例,仅供参考。 续两点经验: 1,最重要的是逐条回答,即使你答不了,也要老实交代;不要太狡猾,以至于耽误事; 2,绝大部分实验是不要真追加的,除非你受到启发,而想该投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章,从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story”了。 以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多,以至于稿源吃紧,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。

如何回复审稿人意见

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

(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板

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 投稿回复

SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览2013-10-31 10:39阅读(12)转载自~~ ?赞(21) ?评论 ?转载(43) ?分享(32) ?复制地址 ?收藏夹按钮收藏 ?更多 已经是第一篇 | 下一篇:一步一步教你使用... 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 consider Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have 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 “Journa 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 fro queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 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 st titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more t 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 rev iewer’s comments. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards! Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 三、修改稿Cover letter

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 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。

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。

相关文档
最新文档