Revision Note SCI回复编辑审稿人回信
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 the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your 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, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat 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 pro 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 thana metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph>>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscriptthat 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 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 behaviourin 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:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: 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 andit 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 errorsAnswer: 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., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysissection 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 SincerelyXxxx 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 manuscriptto Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst 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 EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its ph armacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read moresmoothly.Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.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 issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.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 theguideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified 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 very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2). 论文题目： Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer 所投杂志：BMC Cancer.结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。
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。
sci给编辑的回信模板
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。
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 IDWe 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. XXXCorresponding 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’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted inSupplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations ofXXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (SupplementaryFig.) that summarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments tobetter clarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify thepoint that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request wehave used XXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted inSupplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 intothe new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new dataare depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that ….We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was tooweek and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDFformat.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In orderto better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision – authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; inthe new experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performedin XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to ….To address the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that….To further confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were correctedin the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and itsresult is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. wererepeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1,above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision – authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’ssuggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that ….The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….inour previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in thismanuscript we focused on ….Welcome To Download !!!欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考！。
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 /lfs/ and log in as an Author.You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording 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:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: 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 errorsAnswer: 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., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)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 SincerelyXxxx 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 SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst 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 EnglishAnswer: 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.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.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 issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified 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 very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2). 论文题目：Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer所投杂志：BMC Cancer.结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。
sci回复审稿人意见模板
sci回复审稿人意见模板Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript entitled [Manuscript Title]. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been extremely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work. Following your suggestions, we have made the necessary revisions, and we believe that these changes have considerably strengthened the manuscript.Below, we address each of your specific comments in detail:1. [Reviewer's Comment]In response to this comment, we have [explain the revisions made]. These changes have [justify how the revisions have addressed the concern] and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.2. [Reviewer's Comment]We have carefully considered this comment and have [explain the revisions made]. This has [describe the impact of the revisions on the manuscript] and has improved the overall flow and organization of the manuscript.3. [Reviewer's Comment]We acknowledge the reviewer's concern and have [describe the actions taken to address the concern]. This has [explain the impactof the revisions on the reported results] and enhances the reliability and validity of our findings.We sincerely appreciate your thorough and thoughtful review, which has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of this manuscript. We hope that the revisions we made have adequately addressed your concerns. If you have any further suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.Once again, thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript.Best regards,[Your Name]。
SCI回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。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
U3k Ak k 1 cos sin k cos k
(8)
where the mode number k=1,2,3…, Ak is the kth modal amplitude, ϕ is the meridional angle measured from the pole, and ψ is the circumferential angle. [Comment 3] From Table 4, Suppression ratio for First mode it is 63.9% and for Second mode it is 17%, along with complexity of unpredicted nonlinear behaviors, system uncertainties, model imperfections is it position of actuators also matters, discuss [Answer] We have added a paragraph to discuss this phenomenon on page 17. -------Table 4 indicates that the suppression ratio of the first order mode is more significant than that of the second mode. This is qualitatively consistent with the theoretical results obtained in a previous study that the actuator control effect gradually decreases at higher modes since the inherent membrane effect diminishes as the mode increases [27]. Furthermore, since the sensor and actuator chosen in this experiment is near the excitation position, according to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, vibration amplitude of the first mode is larger than that of the second mode at that point. This could also contribute to the suppression difference between the two modes. Also, the suppression
Thank you again for your comments and 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. Yours sincerely, Kobe Bryant
ratio could be influenced by the selection of the control parameters and the complexity of unpredicted nonlinear behaviors, system uncertainties, model imperfections, etc. of the paraboloidal shell system. [Comment 4] Any study done on different gains other than Ksen =20 and Kact =50 (Page No. 11, last para) [Answer] According to the material properties (see Appendix) of the PVDF used in this experiment, we obtain the Ksen =20 and Kact =50 by parameter identification firstly. That is to say, these scale gains are the most appropriate for this kind of PVDF patches. Therefore, we did not carry out other experiments on different gains in this paper. [Comment 5] The sensor voltages are very low, is it practically possible to get actuation voltage in space [Answer] Thank you for your advice. The sensing voltage of a PVDF patch is usually low and should be amplified before entering the controller. However, this sensing signal is only used to mirror the vibration amplitude of the shell at certain position. The actuation voltage for a PVDF actuator would be hundreds of volts and this driving voltage can be supplied by high-proportion voltage amplifier modules today which is practical for space use. Additionally, some lower voltage (100V-150V) driving piezoelectric materials have been widely used in structure dynamic control and these materials may also be used in space in the future.
Dear Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editor, Thanks a lot for your helpful comments on our manuscript. Now we are submitting this revised version after incorporating reviewer ’s comments and making improvements. Yours sincerely, Kobe Bryant Dear Reviewers, We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments to improve this paper. We have addressed all issues raised be the reviewer. The amendments made are mentioned below with reference to appropriate paragraphs and sections of the revised manuscript. Response to Reviewer #1 [Comment 1] Very Good efforts are done for experimental setup. [Answer] Thank you for your encouragement of the research. [Comment 2] How are the Theoretical modes shapes are calculated and presented in Fig. 2-4. [Answer] We have added the theoretical transverse mode shape function of a free paraboloidal membrane shell in Section 3.1 on page 8. This assumed mode shape function was obtained and validated in our previous study and details could be found in ref.[27]. With this theoretical mode shape function, one can achieve the theoretical mode shapes of the paraboloidal shell in Fig. 2-4. -----In a previous study of a free paraboloidal shell, with experienced “trail-and-error” and verification, a new transverse mode shape function of a paraboloidal membrane shell with free boundary condition has been derived [27]