SCI投稿经验(三) 回复审稿人

      个人觉得在投稿过程中，审稿人对文章的看法是非常重要的。而如何给审稿人留下好印象，就非常考验回复审稿人的技巧与方法了。因为既然文章已经送到审稿人手中，至少在编辑眼中暂时还是认可你的文章有在其期刊发表的潜力的。本篇文章就结合自己投稿谈一谈和审稿人斡旋中的一些小经验。

一、客观对待审稿意见和拒稿

当编辑认可你的文章后，就会把文章发给相应领域的审稿人。审稿人一般是大牛或者是在某个领域很有建树的人，而且审稿是无报酬的，因此对待审稿意见要十分尊重，每一条批评与建议，都要认真分析，并作出相应的增补；哪怕是你不认可的意见，也要慎重的回答，礼貌且有条理的与审稿人探讨。

对于拒稿，要分清被拒的理由。如果是完全的拒绝，比如文章根本没有意义，不适合某期刊，那就不要挣扎了，放弃或者改投。如果是文章包含某些有用的数据和信息，但是编辑认为数据分析或讨论存在缺陷，这种类型的文章可以用更充分广泛的证据或更明确地结论重新再投。切忌不要把原封不动的把被拒的文章反复投稿，很有可能被杂志拉入投稿黑名单。

二、稿件退修

几乎所有的通过审查学术水平达到出版要求的自由来稿，在发表前都需要退给作者修改其表述及编辑格式，比如压缩篇幅、修改插图格式、限制不规则缩写词等。而退回修改的稿件并不代表文章已经接收，最终接收与否取决于作者对文章关键性修改是否能够达到审稿人和编辑的要求。

一般来说退修的材料包括原稿、审稿人意见和一封编辑的信。当你收到退修信后，首先要仔细的阅读信件内容以及审稿人意见，然后考虑是否愿意接受审稿人的意见修改稿件。对每位审稿人提出的意见要逐条回答；对修回稿中已修改的地方要具体标明(page, lines)；给主编回信，感谢给文稿提出的修改意见，并指出按修改建议已作的修改，未作修改的地方要说明理由。个人建议是所有问题最好都按要求去做，这样的 accept 可能性很高，当然审稿人的水平也有不同，有些明显错误的观点应当用详细的理由加以回复，有可能的话附上参考文献增加可信度。

三、实例解析

一般来说一篇文章会分配2个以上的审稿人。以我上一篇文章为例，三个审稿人。一个大修，一个小修，一个拒稿，所有的类型我都遇到了，还好我锲而不舍的认真完成了所有审稿人的意见，终于逆转了局势，内心的想法就是，你是审稿人你说什么都是对的，只要我能发表哈哈。主要就是根据审稿人提出的意见，一一做出回复并补充相关实验，还有说我英语不好的，我也找了专门的润色机构；另外拒稿的审稿人觉得我的创新性不够，我补充了实验进一步完善实验，并且重申了我的创新点，最终也获得了审稿人的肯定。

下面分享我的回复模板，大家可以参考一下：

第一个审稿人给出的意见是大修

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):

The manuscript entitled “XXX” presents a multifunctional composite nanoplatform capable of XXX in tumor treatment. I think some necessary revision should be addressed the following concerns for further evaluation:

Response: Thank you very much for the positive comments and constructive suggestions. Please find the following detailed responses to your comments and suggestions.

1、Would it affect the structure of XXX adsorbed? How did the authors measure the loading ratios of XXX?

Response: Thanks very much for your comment, which is highly appreciated.

A. To verify the effect of XXX modification on the structure of XXX,we supplemented the 哪些实验as follows.接下来对实验结果进行论证回答审稿人问题。并附上实验结果图。

B. 第二个问题给出相应的实验以及论证。

2、What kind of interaction between XXX and XXX carrier to form a stable composite structure?

Response: Thanks for your kind question.首先我给出了问题答案，随后引用文献论证该答案的正确性与合理性。

3、 SEM and TEM images of XXX may be given in the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. 这种问题就很简单处理了，直接按照审稿人的意见补充就行。

4、也是一个补实验论证的意见，就不赘述了。

5、XXX are not so satisfactory from Digital photos in Figure X.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestions,which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript.审稿人认为我的图片不合要求，于是重新做了这项实验，并给符合审稿人要求的新的实验结果。

6、Typos and errors should be corrected.

Response: Thanks for your constructive suggestion, which is highly appreciated.We have carefully scrutinized the manuscript, and made corresponding revisions including some typos, grammatical errors and long sentences, etc.

审稿人二给出的意见是小修

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):

Authors construct XXX against tumor. The work is very attractive and well-written. The experimental data support the proposed hypotheses well and the interpretation of the results is appropriate. So I suggest accept this manuscript only after following minor revisions.

Response: Thank you very much for your recommendation.We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions.

1、In the introduction, authors should cite some literatures related to XXX and XXX.

Response: Thanks for the references,which are now included in the revised manuscript.Specific references are listed as follows:XXX

审稿人要求补充相关文献，就列出就行。

2、…

3、Some sentences in the text are too long. It is better to use short sentences.

Response: Thanks for your kind suggestion. According to the reviewers’ comment,we have corrected these too long sentences to make the language more accurate and more appropriate.Furthermore,we have had the manuscript polished with the help of editing service and have marked out in the revised manuscript.

审稿人三意见是拒稿,但是也认真提出了许多意见,所幸在满足了他的所有要求后,他也没有过多的为难,同意了接收。

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):

The manuscript titled as XXX is not suitable for publication in this journal as the novelty is not very high and therapeutic system used here has been reported in cancer nanomedicine. In addition, for further improving the manuscript, the following points should be taken into consideration.

Response:Thanks for your comments, which is highly appreciated. As for the novelty, it is well-known that XXX. However, XXX. Although there are some reports focusing on XXX, the focus on XXX has been rarely explored. Especially for XXX that features some unparalleled merits like XXX, only several reports underlined XXX. More unfortunately, little attention was paid to XXX. In this report, 重申创新.Thanks again to the reviewer on suggesting to further improve this manuscript,we have studied comments carefully and have made corresponding corrections which we hope meet with approval.

(1) (2)(3)…也是和上述一样需要补充相关实验完善文章的要求,就一笔略过了.

We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for reviewers’ warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

最后真诚的感谢审稿人,审稿人爽了也就对你手下留情了。

见知乎
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/136760615?ivk_sa=1024320u