关于 response letter

关于 cover letter 和 response letter

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/105886043

转载

1. “大修”的重要意义

---

几个月前认识了小木虫网站，从此就喜欢上了这里．每天有空都上这里，看一下虫友发表论文的经验，体会，怎么投稿，怎么回复审稿人的意见等，还有热心虫友提供的英文投稿，回复审稿人模板等等，收获很多。我的第一篇SCI能顺利接收，小木虫网站，还有许多热心的虫友，给了我最无私和真诚的帮助．谢谢大家，希望大家能够多中SCI论文，多发高水平的论文。各个新手，包括我在内，如果有任何问题，可以贴出来，相信许多热心的虫友，肯定会帮助你，帮你解答，提供建议。你一定会收获很多。

这是我的第一篇SCI，影响因子1.0左右。要谈下经验可能说不上．我谈下自己投稿的个人体会，希望能给大家一些帮助。
　　我是做完实验后，花了将近２个多月的时间才写出来的。老板不懂英文，只有我自己一个人来写，修改．我英文水平也不赖，万事开头难，确实第一篇比较痛苦，每一句英文都自己推敲，看是否顺畅。因此，自己下载打印了十几篇相关的文献，粗略看了，其中有一半以上都是自己师兄师姐和外校同行（国内）的发表的相关英文文章．里面的许多英文句式，都可以修改后借鉴使用。这样时间可以缩短．确定投哪个期刊后，就按期刊的格式开始写．有时候碰到英文不懂的怎么地道翻译，可以上中国期刊网(CNKI)翻译助手里去找，翻译，它会给出人家的表达，选一个自己觉得合适的（这个翻译工具不错，可能大家都在用）．这样写出来的英文文章至少老外可以看的懂，不会一投稿，就说"The paper is not well written and hard to understand(translation proble?) "或者"The major problem with this paper is concerned with English(grammar and sentence structures)"等等。至少编辑看了后，觉得你英文表达是可以的，可以送审．这是成功的第一步．
　　自己写完后，打印出来，读懂，觉得没多少问题．5月下旬就投了出去。编辑部说收到了．under review,接着就是等待．这期刊速度还是很快的．一个月后，6月23号就返回了审稿意见，要大修。2个审稿人，一个觉得我稿件数据要处理，加上误差分析等，才同意审稿．另一个审稿人，很认真仔细，给我英文表达的许多错误，修改的很仔细．那一行，那一页，该删除哪个词，该添加哪个词，时态表达等等，全部用红笔了下。象一个家庭教师一样，非常认真。而这都是免费的啊，所以我要非常感谢他。国外的审稿人，真是太仔细，认真，太好了。同时他也提了一大堆的问题，有10多个。仔细看了下，有两三个还不知道怎么回答，一个问题说我的一个解释机理是纯粹的想象或者幻想，要删掉；一个问题说我的解释有问题，从另一个角度也可以解释，问我做过这方面的测试没有？而我对这个角度的解释又不懂，，等等。总之要大修，编辑要求最好一个月内送回修稿件．
　　正如虫友所说＂但凡主编给你修改机会的话，即便是Major Revision，其实他的意图已经很明显了——他觉得你的论文还是有可取之处的，也是倾向于录用的。换言之，他如果觉得你论文不行的话，早就把你拒了。所以，珍惜修改机会。只要给你修改机会，一定好好把握．＂＂象野狗一样把这块肉牢牢地咬住不放！！＂（哈哈，非常经典形象！！）
　　
　　个人第一感觉不好解释回答，先搁着。接着就是暑假了，一直在考虑怎么回答这些问题，我要好好修改一下。在这里我还是要感谢小木虫和热心的虫友，他们给了我热心的帮助．比如第一个审稿人的意见，我用origin作曲线的误差棒就不懂，是发了帖后虫友告诉我的，非常感谢他们。接着就在小木虫搜索有关怎么回复审稿人问题的帖子，好多，非常有用．比如，＂核心是如何修改你的paper，解答审稿人的疑问，并在回复信笺中告诉审稿人你如何根据他的意见修改了，而不是仅仅在回复信笺中解释给审稿人听。因为你的读者是看不到你的解释的，只有你修改了你的paper,才能让你的读者不会再有疑问＂，＂个人需要做到以下几点：

• 客客气气。在Cover Lett中，首先对审稿人、对主编表示感谢；
• 实实在在。根据审稿意见，逐条、逐点进行回复，即使是微小的修改，也要进行说明，句末说明你的修改体现在论文的第几页、第几行；多用这样一些语句：according to reviewer’s instructions……as suggested by the reviewer……这样至少让人觉得你很尊重审稿人的意见。＂

我就是这么做的。对第一个审稿人，按照要求，进行了误差分析，给曲线加了误差棒；对第二个审稿人，首先对他非常感谢，特别是语法方面给作者的指正。接着就是点对点的答复．第一个疑难的问题，＂解释是纯粹的幻想，要删除＂，确实不好回答．是听从审稿人的意见，删除，或者是辩驳啊，自己不知道．跟导师说了下，导师给了我很多帮助，这个机理是怎样的。怎么解释等等。后来，我还是保留这个解释了．重新对机理解释，写的更详细些，并且重新添加了一些图形，这样好解释说明。第二个疑难的问题，可能要我从另一个角度解释，补做实验等，但不好回答啊，也不懂这方面的实验。我先是对他的建议表示感谢，接着说我重新查找了几篇文献，他们都是这个角度来解释的．我引用了这些文献，重新修改了我的解释．这段时间刚好是奥运会，看了比赛再说。大修后，删除了很多东西，增加了不少解释表达．拖了一个礼拜，到了9月1日才把修改稿投出．接着就是新一轮的under review!!
　可能是自己第一篇SCI，要等着它毕业啊．所以，不着急自己也着急，睡觉的时候有时都在想会不会录用啊，不录用怎么办啊，耽误了３个月了，非常着急。这期刊一个月就会给消息的。因此这个礼拜国庆也不出去玩，天天上油箱看邮件，上期刊网站看状态，一天上几次．前天还是Under review.昨天晚上打开油箱，标题就是ACCEPT–journal of *******，太高兴了。大修后直接接受．．
　　写了这么多，可能比较罗嗦，还是谢谢各位虫友的帮助．如果能对你们有用有所体会，那我非常欣慰了。祝福各位虫友多发论文！！

后记：不少虫子向我要response　letter和cover letter的写法，谢谢各位虫子的关注．其实这些模板在小木虫网站上有很多的，感谢小木虫．我把我总结的觉得有用的抄下来，供各位虫子参考。希望对你们有用，谢谢。

cover letter的写法

Dear Editor，

We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions on our manuscript(********). Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will be acceptable for publication in *********.


Thank you very much for your work concerning our paper.
Wish you all the best!

Sincerely yours,
************************

2. 回复思路

论文修改回复的原则

记住，回答问题是一门取悦别人的艺术：

1. 不要让问题影响你的情绪；
2. 认真对待每一个问题，读懂每个问题，确定回答策略；
3. 回答策略就是坚持审稿人是对的；
4. 对于审稿人提出的补充实验，尽可能照办；
5. 对于有争议的问题，要不卑不亢地回答。

回复信要详细：这一点非常重要，很多作者不知道这一点。那么回复信要详细到什么程度呢？基本原则是：所有的审稿人不用看修改稿，只需看回复信即可清楚了解作者几乎所有的修改。所修改过的内容，包括图表都要放到回复信中，如果关于文字修改太多，无法一一展示，也要举几个改动大的例子。即使有的审稿人的问题和另外一个审稿人的问题重复，也要分别回答，别怕回复信长，我就见过３０多页的回复信。另外审稿人的问题和作者的回答要显著区分开，比如用黑体等方式，总之，要让审稿人阅读方便、一目了然。当然也不能走向另外一个极端，认为是回复信越长越好，用超长的回复信将审稿人砸晕，我们写回复信不是为了挣按字数计算的稿费，说话也要到点子上，审稿人大都是忙人，东拉西扯很可能会误事。

三步走策略：

1. 引用文献
2. 承诺未来
3. 进行讨论

十一项注意：

问题的分类和回答策略

1. 轮子的问题：分以下五步进行：
   感谢提问；同意观点；承认错误；综述别人成果；承诺未来。
   如：The reviewer has made a very good point here. Our original description has been misleading, and we have made correction in this revision as requested. I noticed that in previous studies, [罗列文献]。
   This is a constructive suggestion by the reviewers. We have added these contents in the Discussion sector of this revision, which will help readers to better understand this article.
2. 哲学家的问题：we will be very glad if the reviewer can specify his questions and give us a list of questions, which will definitely help us to improve our manuscript.
3. 完美主义问题: we also mentioned in the Discussion section.
4. 外行的问题: we are sorry that we failed to make us clearly…
5. 一般性学术问题
6. 重大学术问题: 当遇到“exceptionally immature”/ “severe limitations”的评价时，建议按要求修改后再改投其它杂志。
7. 要求补充实验：（条件允许，最好补充）
8. 写作，格式，语言等方面
9. 伦理问题
10. 不该出现的问题：I am sorry for this kind of mistakes to eliminate such kind of problems.
11. 科研不端：对于一稿想同时投英文和中文杂志，必须在cover letter中告知杂志社此事，做到透明化，才能避免纠纷。

3. 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。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。

第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。

回复 case

Major comments 1:

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.

Answer:
Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn’t obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement 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-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.

---

Major comments 2:

2. In fig1Cplease 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.

Answer:
MMP-9 negative cell used in fig1Cwas Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.

---

Major comments 3:

3. The ELISA results are represented as “fold increase” compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography.

Answer:
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 absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in 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 the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.

---

Major comments 4:

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.

Answer:
In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 inspontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.

---

Major comments 5:

5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.

Answer:
CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer’s recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.

more ways see https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/26609128