大修后文章直接录用，谈点经验与虫子们共勉

回复审稿人，态度决定一切

  也许说的有点过，但个人觉得还是很有道理的。
  最近我的一篇SCI接受了。这篇文章花了我大半年时间，于今年暑假完稿并投出。投的杂志是美国的******杂志。一个多月前受到编辑的通知：要求大 修！三个审稿人，一个建议积极，说只是语言问题，并没提有关内容的问题；第二、三审稿人都提了很多问题，总共14个大问题，有的大问题里面还有小问题。三 个审稿人得第一个问题都是语言问题（一般中国作者投英美杂志大都会遇到此问题，当然，我的看来比较严重）。拿到这个通知，说实在的，头都大了。有几个问题 直指文章的死角，回答不好的话，文章的立意直接会受到怀疑。不过，我决定修改！本着态度诚恳，认真、严谨求实的原则，我花了22天的时间把所有问题回答完 毕，该补充的实验进行了补充，该分析的数据又进行重新分析，基本是严格按照审稿人的建议意义修改。最后整篇文章的80%左右进行了大修，当然结论不能改 动，只能从补充的那个实验中得到进一步的加强。语言问题，本来想请修改公司润色，后来在小木虫上求助, 绝大数虫友建议自己修改, 只有这样不能达到锻炼和提升自己的目的,于是决定完全自己修改。于是乎，就找了十几篇******最近发表的论文（英美作者写的）进行仔细研读，论文语言 格式可以套用，加上自己的论述对象就OK了。最后回答问题15页，补充实验3个，原文章80%的修改最终于10月31日提交。后来经过半个月的再审，就直 接录用了！
  现在回想起来，感触颇多，本打算着再次小修，然后才能接 受（一般都这样），没想到还算顺利。后来，自己总结一下认为：回复审稿人的意见是很讲技巧的，说不好就完了，特别是对于要求大修的文章！更是如此。谦逊、 谨慎、认真、求实的态度最为重要。对于不太清楚的地方也不能回避，要本着自己理解给以回答，最后最好在征求一下审稿人的意见，谦虚的染提起对着干问题给以 指导，总之要给审稿人以最好的印象，这是文章录用的关键所在。

下面列出审稿意见和我的回复，以期与朋友们问共勉：（由于帖子限制长度，部分问题与回答略）

Dear Editors and Reviewers.
   Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled
“A simple method for preparation of ****** used as active, stable and biocompatible SERS
substrate  by  using  electrostatic  self-assembly”  (ID:  ******-09-1602).  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#
Response to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English
language. I point out a few sentences only from the ABSTRACT and Conclusion. The rest
corrections have to be done by the authors. I encourage the authors for small sentences.
ABSTRACT - A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by
a low-cost electrochemical strategy at a proper voltage and polyvinyl alcohol (******) concentration
in  electrolyte  is  performed.  With  scanning  electron  microscopy,  the  morphology  of  the  Ag
nanofilm is a two-dimensional structure with nano-scale regions
should read as  
A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost
electrochemical  strategy  using  polyvinyl  alcohol  (******)  at  a  proper  voltage.    The  two
dimensional morphology of the ****** has been examined by scanning electron microscopy.
Conclusion -- ... The morphologies and SERS activity and stability of the ******s are
characterized by SEM and SERS measurement, respectively. SERS spectra of ****** and ****** obtained
from  these ******s compare with those from Ag colloids, which reavals an excellent
enhancement effect of the ******s as SERS-active substrates.
should read as
The morphology, stability and SERS activity of the ****** have been studied. The excellent
enhancement of SERS spectra for ****** and ****** from the ****** is observed in comparison to
the Ag colloid system... The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication.
Response: As the Reviewer's good instruction, we have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some
long  sentences  into  short  sentences  and  edited  the  whole  MS  according  to  the  Reviewer’s  instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English  language papers to help us for checking the English (see the revised MS). We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer 3#

1. Response to comment: English should be checked throughout the text by a native English
speaker.
Response: According to the reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the whole manuscript
carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. In addition, we have asked several
colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We hope that
the language is now acceptable for the next review process.
2. Response to comment: The manuscript is too long. It must be shortened. The authors must be
more concise. The introduction takes three pages. In fact, it is very hard to read the paper. There are several sentences that should be changed for a better understanding. Some corrections are done in the margins of the manuscript (pods file). I enclosed a copy of that.
Response: We agree the reviewer's good advice. Yes, the manuscript is too long (especially the
part of introduction), which is very hard to read the paper. And that, there are several sentences are hard for understanding. Thus, we have revised the original manuscript in order to reduce the
length of the manuscript and make it better understanding (especially the part of Introduction).
However, due to additional experiments and explanations are added in the revised manuscript
according to the other Reviewer′s suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort. Nevertheless, we have revised the sentences (especially some long sentences) for the whole
manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise.    Especially,  the  corrections  done  in  the  margins  of  the  manuscript  (pods  file)  which  the Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us. We are very appreciated for the Reviewers good comments and corrections made for our manuscript.     
3. Response to comment: Repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. For example:
authors use ". active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate." a lot of times through the text.
Also, they indicate ".perfect stability of." or ".perfect biocompatible." Well, SERS spectra of SC become weaker when the time goes on thus, no Raman signal will be obtained for a long, long time. It means, that the time deteriorates Ag surface. I think that "perfect" is not a good adjective.
Response: It is really true as the Reviewer suggested that some repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. Thus, we have made corrections according to the Reviewer’s good instructions. We have deleted the repeated words such as "active", "stable" and "biocompatible" in some sentences. Meanwhile, like the Reviewer questioned that we have not studied the SERS spectra of SC for a long, long time. Thus, the using of "perfect" to describe the SERS substrate of Ag nanofilm  is  inapposite.  Considering  the  Reviewer’s  good  suggestion,  we  have  deleted  this adjective in some sentences of the revised manuscript.
4. Response to comment: About organization of the manuscript. There are too many epigrap****** in
section 2. I propose the following points:
2.1. Reagents. Preparation of ****** and ****** (old points 2.1 and 2.2 together)
2.2. Preparation of ******-protected Ag nanoparticles and ******s (old points 2.3 and 2.4
together)
2.3. Experimental equipments (old points 2.5; 2.6 and 2.7 together)
Response: Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have re-organized the epigrap****** in section 2. We have organized three parts for the section 2 of the revised manuscript. The epigrap****** in section 2 are as following:   
2.1. Reagents and preparation of ****** and ******
2.2. Preparation of ******-protected ****** (******-Ag CNPs) and ******s
2.3. Experimental equipments  


Special thanks to you for your good comments.


Dear Editors and Reviewers.        
We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the
manuscript according to the Reviwers′good comments. 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 corrections will
meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good
comments.   

Yours sincerely,
R.M. Liu