《sci审稿意见回复范文》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《sci审稿意见回复范文（15页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、论论 文文 题题 目目 ： PharmacokineticPharmacokinetic andand pharmacodynamicpharmacodynamic studiesstudies onon thetheantivirus effects of A (antivirus effects of A (一种中草药一种中草药) against virus B) against virus B （一种病毒）（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 ha
2、s been examined by the editors and qualifiedreferee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision beforewe can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful considerationmust be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which areenclosed below.If you choose to submit a rev
3、ision of your manuscript, pleaseincorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper.A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually consideredinadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany ther
4、esubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as aseparate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After thistime, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submissionwill be considered a new manuscript.To submit
5、 a revision, go to and log in as an Author.You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You willfind your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife Sciences，Format Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our websiteto check the format of your art
6、icle. Pay particular attention to ourReferences 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 contemporaryEnglishPharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effectsof A aga
7、inst 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 forantiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays alongwith serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviralactivity. The pharmacokinetic
8、 profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasmaafter oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken atselected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviralpharmacodynamicsasmeasuredbyinfectivityofviruses.Fromthesimilarity of the serum concentration profiles and antivir
9、al activityprofiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exertedthe effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need foreffective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest thepossibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should che
10、ck to be sure that the terms blood samples,plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstractand text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1stparagraph A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from theplant, its structural formula is shown in
11、 Fig 1. . While it produceda general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation wasstimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggesta potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B thatcould be studied in experiments in cell culture and an
12、imals.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 notinclude the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In thereference section the first
13、name should be abbreviated as shown in theguideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu etal., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)。The authors instead of directly answering the first complexquestion of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future
14、researchaim in the discussion section.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amendthe wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the resultof tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD. reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 mightbe satisfied by
15、inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heartshowing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen whatyou are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I amhoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked forerrors. If
16、you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of thepoints raised please contact me at Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Im （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 expe
17、rimentsagain （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weightratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices（注：用词错误）werecalculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-and TNF-were （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.|I have revis
18、ed this manuscript and especially paid much attention toyour comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE.Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of Aagainst virus B and its phar macokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” tomake it more clear and smooth.
19、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 contemporaryEnglish(Answer: I have rewrite the title to“The antivirus effects of Aagainst virus B and its pharmacokinetic b
20、ehaviour in SD rats serum” tomake 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 smoothand informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples,plasma and serum are
21、always used appropriately throughout the abstractand 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 passiveand obtained help of my colleague proficient in
22、English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: Im very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spellingerrors （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 includethe first name of
23、 the authors being cited in the text. In the referencesection the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guidelineto authors (thus the earliertext 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
24、redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result oftables 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 besatisfied by inclusion of a representative
25、 photo of cells and heartshowing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen whatyou are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented picturesof cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).&I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because
26、of thosemisspelling 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 helpedme a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can besatisfactory.If theres （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide,please dont hesitate to contact me.Thank you ag
27、ain 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. Micewere sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection w
28、ith virus B.Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers andpathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10,IFN- and TNF- were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments andsuggestions of reviewers and editor, and respo
29、nded, point by point to,thecommentsaslistedbelow.Sincethepaperhasbeenrevisedsignificantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlightthe 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 medicalediting company in Hong Kong.I w
30、ould 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
31、their positiveand 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 contmeporaryEnglish、Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects ofSoph
32、oridine 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 andread more smoothly.The authors should check to be sure that the t
33、erms blood samples,plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstractand text.Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now usedappropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I
34、have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passivewith 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 includethe f
35、irst name of the authors being cited in the text. In the referencesection the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guidelineto authors (thus the earliertext reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)Answer: I have changed the style of refere
36、nces according to thejournal.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result oftables 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 revis
37、ed manuscript.reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might besatified by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showingCPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you aretrying to describe.Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have add
38、ed picturesof 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：所投杂志：BMC Cancer.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。作者在论文适当地方加上了有关陈述）理委员会同意的问题。作者在论文适当地方加上了有关陈述）审稿人内容（有删节） ：Rev
39、iewers reportClinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancerVersion: 1 Date: 12 June 200XReviewer: XXXX XXXX (A Japanese Reviewer)Reviewers report:。General-Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to beforea decision on publication can be reached)1. XXXXX.2. XXXXX.3. XXXXX.4) The
40、clinico pathological parameters examined are reported in Table1. Among the primary tumor characteristics, the Authors consider thediameter, but ignore T stage. Consequently the T parameter is notconsidered in the multivariate analysis. In other studies, T stage hasemerged as an independent factor. T
41、he Authors should therefore state thereason for their unusual choice. Nor is the number of metastatic nodesreported in this table. Moreover, for tumor differentiation, the Authorsdistinguish between two groups (differentiated vs undifferentiated),instead of between the usual 3 categories (G1, G2 and
42、 G3). I have neverheard of the histological classification used by the Authors (massive,next and diffuse). They might therefore state their reasons for choosingit, providing a reference, if available.-Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or thewrong use of a term, which the
43、author can be trusted to correct)XXXXX.-Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)(None)What next: Reject because too small an advance to publishLevel of interest: An article of limited interestQuality of written English: Needs some language corrections beforebeing publishedbSta
44、tistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualifiedto assess the statistics.作者原答: T stage is considered in the multivariate analysis, and somemodification has been made in tumor differentiation and histologicalclassification.建议改答： We accept Dr. XXX comment ( 表明你对审稿人的欣赏和赞同).In the revised ve
45、rsion of the manuscript, T stage has been added in themultivariate analysis, and description of tumor differentiation andhistologicalclassificationhasbeenmodified;thehistologicalclassification in the original manuscript has been replaced by thegenerally accepted classification (Page 6, line 15; Tabl
46、e 4) ( 同意审稿人的建议，并根据其建议进行修改。同时指出在何处做了修改。).加注： 作者原回答与修改后的回答并无本质差别， 正文中的修改也是一样的。但作者原回答会给审稿人“不太乐意”或“轻描淡写”的印象。因为审稿人花了122 个单词来就此问题发表建议，而作者只用了 20 个。修改后的回答， 相信一开始就赢得审稿人的好感。你的回答不光是给审稿人看的，杂志编辑也会看（至少审稿人会这么认为） ，所以，审稿人会有种满足感（国外审稿人没有酬劳，得到作者和编辑的认可是他们审稿最主要的目的） 。建议得到认可（当然，这里审稿人的确是正确合理的） ，而且作者还按其建议对文章进行修改，相信绝大多数审稿人是不
47、会（不好意思）再拒绝修改稿的（所谓伸手不打笑面人） 。当然，这篇文章起死回生、二审通过审稿关，关键是杂志编辑手下留情，给了作者再投(Re-submission)的机会。有时， 审稿人的建议得到作者认可， 但作者无法按建议修改， 尤其补做试验。这种情况将在以后举例说明。论文题目：Misdiagnosis of A (一种先天性疾病)as 某某 tumor: a case report所投杂志：所投杂志：Neuro-OphthalmologyNeuro-Ophthalmology投稿结果：大修，结果未知（前途未卜，因为该审稿人建议拒稿，但审稿投稿结果：大修，结果未知（前途未卜，因为该审稿人建议拒稿
48、，但审稿人给作者机会）人给作者机会）。审稿人审稿内容及作者原答和建议改答（有删节） ：Reviewer 2s report审稿人问题 1The authors try to caution eye specialists and neurosurgeons not todo major orbital surgery on children without doing a dilated fundusexamination with an indirect ophthalmoscope. In their case, once thecorrect diagnosis was made, by
49、 properly examining the eye, surgery wasnot necessary. A thorough pre-operative examination of the eye should bea automatic prerequisiteto orbital surgery forpoor vision, so I do notthink their paper presents a unique idea.作者原答Answer:Althoughcorrectdiagnosiscanbemadebythoroughexaminations, doctors a
50、re often misleaded by a “wrong” chief complaint（wrong 可能表示主诉症状本身误导，也可能表示病人说错，也可能是收诊医生记录错误）. In our case, the retinal specialist who made a misdiagnosisat first （at first 用词不当）, was misleaded by “blurred vision in theleft eye over a month” and did not pay enough attention to differentiatea congenital
51、 disease from “tumor”（需说明两者关联） . In （On） the otherhand, it is also the result of too many patients we have to manage perworking day (most large hospital（hospitals）in China is (are) on thisoccasion) and doctors in outpatient clinic have not much time to performthorough ophthalmic examination ( 不 应 太
52、绝 对 ). So, the clinicalmisdiagnosis is not complete occasional event. We could learn a lot fromthis case.建议改答Answer: We agree with the referee that correct diagnosis can be madeby proper and thorough examinations（首先肯定审稿人的观点to makehim/her happy）. However, doctors are often misled by an “atypical” （比w
53、rong 要具体且客观）chief complaint, especially when there are too manypatients in an outpatients department such as in a Chinese ophthalmichospital （这句点出误诊原因，下面再逐一解释） . In our case, both theretinalspecialistandorbitalspecialistwhomadetheinitialmisdiagnosis, were misled by the symptom of “blurred vision in
54、the lefteye over a month ”, which is characteristic of an“acquired disease”,and thus he did not pay enough attention to differentiate a congenitaldisease from a “tumor” （指出没有想到先天性疾病的原因 1）. On the otherhand, like most large hospitals in China, doctors in the OutpatientDepartment have to manage up to
55、X (number) patients we per working dayand thus some may have little time to follow the “good clinical practice”and perform thorough ophthalmic examinations（误诊原因 2） . Consequently,the misdiagnosis inevitably occurred. This case report presents thelesion and reiterate the importance of thorough ophtha
56、lmic examinationsprior to any surgery （这句表明为什么该病例报告值得发表）.&审稿人问题 2They have an interesting case, and a case report reviewing the subjectmight be of value, but I think they may have to be satisfied that theypracticed good medicine and saved a child from an unnecessary operation,but that it did not mer
57、it publication.作者原答Answer: The initially misdiagnosis was made by our two specialists(one is a retinal specialist and the other orbital) （词句的意义不明）.Moreover, the reasons for the misdiagnosis have been discussed in our casereport, which would be useful for other doctors, especially for residentsto avo
58、id the same mistake (说服力比较弱). And （正规书信和论文不宜用And 开句）we believe our radiology images in our case will contribute toa better understanding of this condition(说服力比较弱).建议改答Answer: We did feel relieved and satisfied when the unnecessarysurgery was avoided （正面回应审稿人的肯定意见）. However, the fact thatinitial misd
59、iagnosis was made by two experienced but busy specialists (oneis a retinal specialistand the otherorbital), cannot be ignored in ourclinical practice （表明我们不能因为我们避免了不必要的手术而自满）. Wefeel that it would be beneficial to report the case and share ourexperience or lesion with other doctors, in order to avoi
60、d or minimizethe same mistake（因此， 我们希望发表该病例报告已警示同行） . In addition,we believe that the radiology images from our unique case will contributeto a better understanding of this congenital disease （虽不重要，但也许编辑喜欢）.加注：1.该文的特色是一审稿人觉得本病例报告不值得发表，但编辑愿意给作者rebuttal 的机会。其实，该审稿人的评语总体来讲是不错的。但令人不解的是，每条评语最后一句得出跟前面截然不同
61、的结论。可能他/她并不是“大牛” ，不太能掌握病例报告发表的标准。、2.作者的回答总体还是非常好的， 只是语气稍欠委婉，理据说服力需更进一步加强。论文题目：Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis所投杂志：Gut结果：编辑直接拒稿，作者重新修改并申诉，申诉成功，直接接受。编辑信内容（有删节） ：GUT/2008/156323Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitisAuthors names （略）Dear XXX,*Thank you for submitting this ma
62、nuscript to Gut, which was discussedat the last Editorial Committee meeting. We are sorry to say that we areunable to accept it for publication, as it did not achieve a high enoughpriority score to enable it to be published in Gut. We favour letters whichadd new data and did not feel that you letter
63、 did this sufficiently.PleaserememberthatGutreceivesabouteighttimesasmanymanuscripts as we are able to publish, therefore regrettably it followsthat many perfectly adequate papers must be rejected. This decision mustbe based not only on quality, but also timeliness and priority againstother subject
64、areas.For more details, please go to: you Author Area and click on the Manuscripts with decisions queue.We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion.With kind regards.Professor Robin SpillerHandling Editor|Professor Robin SpillerEditor作者申诉信原文：Dear editors,Thanksforyourkindlyhelpinourpreviousmanus
65、cripts(GUT/2008/156323 and GUT/2008/156711).The decision of the editorial board was a little disappointed to me.We had discussed the topic again and rewrite the manuscript according tothe suggestions of the editorial board. We also invited our friend HarryHua-Xiang Xia for insightful editing the pap
66、er.Although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration ofNSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP (these results are of significantclinical implications), several issues remain unsolved. For example, dorisk factors influence the prophylactic effect So, we performed acomplimentary meta-analysi
67、s based on the methodology and the sourcearticles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. Also, it mustemphasized that there were several limitations of the both meta-analysesincludingsmallsamplesizes(forbothsubjectsandstudies),inconsistent definition of PEP, and less representative populations.W
68、e believe the issues raised will improve the quality of themeta-analysis. Thanks for your re-consideration./On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed material“RectalAdministrationofNSAIDsinthePreventionofPost-ERCPPancreatitis: a Complimentary Meta-analysis” for possible publicationin
69、GUT. I have read most of the papers that the journal had published andI believe our research to be in accordance with the style of the JOURNAL.We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approved itfor publication. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this manuscriptneither has been
70、 published in whole or in part nor is it being consideredfor publication elsewhere.We state that there is no conflict of interest and ethical adherencein this study.Best Regards,Authors names and affiliations （略）作者申诉信建议修改文：Dear Professor Spiller （在已知编辑姓氏和职称时请不要再泛称 editor,以示尊重）Thanks for your letter
71、in response to our previous submission ofLetter to Editor (GUT/2008/156323) （事实上，编辑并没有帮助，而是回复）.The decision of the Editorial Board might be because thatwe did notmake it clear that the letter supports the overall conclusion of theElmunzer et al., but provides additional analysis and points out thewe
72、aknesses of the meta-analysis. We further discussed the topic again andhave modified the Letter according to your letters. In addition, we alsoinvited Dr. Harry Hua-Xiang Xia, who is an internationally recognizedgastroenterologist, to join the authorship team and make comments and editthe manuscript
73、. （这一段非常重要。陈述失望心情于事无补。相反，应说明由作者引起的可能导致论文被拒的原因 （很多作者论文被拒后归咎于审稿人或编辑不理解论文的价值） ，并再次强调论文的价值所在。加上本人为作者也许对论文被接收有一定作用，但关键还是在于强调论文本身的价值。 ）We believe the Letter is publishable for the following reasons. First,although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDsis effective in preventing PEP
74、, which is of significant clinicalimplications, several issues remain unsolved. For example, do riskfactorsinfluencetheprophylacticeffectSo,weperformedacomplimentary meta-analysis based on the methodology and the sourcearticles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. We further revealedthat admin
75、istration of NSAIDs was associated with decreased incidence ofPEP in patients with low (RR = , 95% CI: P= and high risks(RR = ,95%CI: , P = . Second, there were several limitations of the meta-analysesoriginated from the source articles. These include small sample sizes (forboth subjects and studies
76、), inconsistent definition of PEP, and lessrepresentative populations. These limitations should be more clearlyacknowledged in the paper by Elmunzer et al. （这一段是核心。能否说服编辑在此一博。原信缺乏数据，而且稍欠层次和说服力） 。Therefore, we wish to re-submit the further revised version for yourre-consideration. （原信有三段与本申诉无关，建议删掉）
77、。With best regards,Yours sincerely,Authors names and affiliations （略）加注：1.该文的特色是编辑委员会觉得本信稿(Letter to Editor)不值得发表，并说明原因， 即稿源太多（8 倍） ，本文无新意。但作者坚持认为该信稿有新意，故决定申诉(Appeal)。2.在看了该信稿并与作者交流后， 本人认为值得申诉。并一起讨论修改原文及申诉信。该信稿很快被接受（并成为作者特殊的结婚礼物） 。3.论文写作与发表只有一般规则， 没有绝对定律。只要你坚信是有价值的东西（试验结果或心灵火花）都有发表的潜力，关键在于如何准确将价值的东西
78、表达出来。4. 对待拒稿，要有良好心态。多多检讨课题设计和论文写作中的问题，而不是抱怨审稿人或编辑没有认真阅读你的论文。遇到审稿人对论文有误解时，我常用的一句话是“We are sorry that we did not make it clear”, 或 “We aresorry for the misunderstanding due to unclear descriptions in our previousmanuscript” 而不是“The reviewer doesnt understand”或“The revieweris wrong.”.等等。在我的回复信中，审稿人从没有“错” 。
