[Reship]如何回复审稿人意见

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

This article came from here: http://blog.renren.com/GetEntry.do?id=418274983&owner=140975937

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

Manuscript number: BXXXXXK
MS Type: Article
Title: "XXXX"
Correspondence Author: XXX
Dear Dr. Fay Riordan:
Thank you very much for your attention and the referee’s evaluation and comments on our paper BXXXXK. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind advices and referee’s detailed suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the referees. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on XXX. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Dr. XXX

Please find the following Response to the comments of referees:

Response to the referee’s comments
Referee A
Comment 1: The titania material formed after calcining at 450 oC is not characterized. XRD of these calcined materials should be provided to understand the crystallinity and phase. Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. According to his/her advices, X-ray diffractometry spectroscopy (XRD) of the calcined TiO2 film was given in Supporting Information (Figure S1) in this revised version. It illustrated that the hydrothermal synthesized TiO2 materials after calcining at 450 oC is entire anatase, which was confirmed by the X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (Rigaku D/ max-2500).

Comment 2: The authors must state the mechanical strength of these materials after the removal of PS by calcinations.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. By a scotch tape peel test, the TiO2 film can’t be stripped from the conducting glass substrate, which indicates that the mechanical strength of as-prepared composite film is strong enough for the fabrication of solar cell devices. The revised details can be found in Line 165-168, page 2.

Referee B
Comment 1: The microtube structure with the size of 500-800 nm cannot only scatter the visible light in the region of 500-800 nm, but also can scatter more efficiently the visible light in the region below 500 nm, and can scatter near infrared light. This point should be clarified in the main text.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind advice. Just like what the referee said, the microtube network structure can scatter not only visible light but also near infrared light. We added this point in revised manuscript and the detailed revision can be found in Line 194-205, Page 2-3.
Comment 2: They described the simulated sunlight as "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)". But in my opinion, it would be better to use the phrase like "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)".
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)" has been changed to "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)" in our revised manuscript. (Line 217, Page 3)
Comment 3: They correctly pointed out that the increased ratio of solar energy conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. It is understandable, considering that a TiO2 porous film was filled with solvent in a device, while that for spectroscopic measurements is filled with air.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. The referee’s explanation is very correct. Light absorptions of TiO2 photoelectrodes are different when they are filled with electrolytes and air, respectively. It is ascribed to that a part of solar light will be absorbed by the electrolytes and also different medium in the porous film will induce the different refractive indices. This is one reason that increased ratio of conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. We added this point into our revised manuscript and the details can be found in Line 325-330, Page 4.

很多人都遇到过回复审稿人意见的时候。本人曾经因为回复审稿意见不合适而导致拒稿，相当的惨哪！！后来发现回复审稿意见时，除了写清修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。对审稿人的意见提出不同的看法也应该讲究一定的技巧。由于这些话的英文都不难写，所以我直接写成中文表述，觉得有用的虫友自己翻译吧。
      首先，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候，第一句话一定要说：“谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！！”
      其次，在回复信的结尾最好写上“再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。”这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。
      再次，如果审稿人提 的意见你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是 不好实现的。你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取 得更多成绩！”这样就委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他的意见。
       第四，如果审稿人的意见明显有问题。那么没办法了，你必须据理力争。但是，你一定不能说：“审稿人先生，我认为你的意见是错的！”你不必对他的意见发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调你的观点是正确的。简单说就是“既不说你对，也不说我对，证据说话”。
       第五，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。那么，不用客气，直接写信给编辑，痛批审稿人。（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。）
投稿，修改稿所用Cover Letter
投稿时：
Dear Prof. XXX,
We submit a manuscript entitled “XXXXXXXXXXXX” (by XXX， XXX and XXX)to XXX for publication.
In this paper, we report XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .Your efforts in the review process of this manuscript are greatly appreciated.
If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know
Sincerely yours,
Dr. XXX

投修改稿时：
Dear Prof. XXXX,
Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).
We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.
If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely yours,
Dr. XXXX

Response to Reviewer 1:
Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:
1. XXXXXXX
2. XXXXXXX

 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）
2）
....
引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。
至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在

所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。
最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。只要自己是正确的就

要坚持。在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！
我得回复格式是这样的：
Dear Professor xx:
Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed.
A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.
Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.
然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。结果修改一次就接收了：）
我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.
Part A (Reviewer 1)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Part B (Reviewer 2)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.
All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
***
一个回复的例子(已接收)
Major comments:
     1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest.
    2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol.
     3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards shouldbe used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography.
     4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration. Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.
     5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition ofMMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine thetoxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.
Minor comments:
     1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion, which need correction.
     a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration, which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg7:"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"
     b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods.
     2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order to confirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positivecontrol (HT1080).
Answer to referee 1 comment:
     1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtainenough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’tcomplement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSFinduced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusionfrom our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.
     2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the mediumconditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, wescreened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. Thisresult may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since thepurities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion bedetected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cellsonditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.
     3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System,sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absoluteconcentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectablein both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higherin CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml).Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors thedetection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.
     4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role ofMMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoieticstem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay betweenadhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that notonly the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison toCD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.
     5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitorsconcentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations usedy others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicityof the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.
Minor comments:
1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.
2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness tocombine two figures.
这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！
Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172
Comment:
Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used inmanuscript?
Reply:
The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
What is the sample size for all tests performed?
Reply:
The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small

fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.
Reply:
Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary.

Just reference method used.
Reply:
Done accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does

not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.
Reply:
Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight

loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis.
Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for

the data.
Comment (continued):
Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on

the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated

otherwise?
Reply:
Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the

revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 33cm2 with a slightly different thickness.
Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.
The present manuscript aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial

electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider

any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As

such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different

conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).
Reply:
Corrected accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release

data for the other conditions?
Reply:
Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow

rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the %

release was not applicable.
Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.
We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.