如何回复审稿人意见：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5. 老师说的4点，确实很有道理不过审稿人提出要补充的实验，如果不是非做不可的，还是可以进行解释我也为国外的杂志审过稿，有时审稿人即使想接受你的文章，总还要提出一些不足之处，如果文章没有那些不足之处，也许文章就会投给更高IF的杂志了所以，如果你真的不想补充实验或者补充很困难，可以合理的解释，一般没问题的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）我常用的回复格式，呵呵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.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)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,具体例子1：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-05-0172Comment:Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?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 3cm2 with a slightly different thickness.´3Standard 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 。